Sugar has become one of the most criticized ingredients in America, prompting consumers to seek out healthier sweetening options. 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 approximately 71% of that coming from commercially processed foods. Excessive added sugar intake is linked to heart health issues and weight gain, making this consumption level far from ideal. The American Heart Association suggests a daily limit of just nine teaspoons for men and six teaspoons for women. Gradually, this message is resonating; a Mintel survey shows that 84% of Americans are trying to limit their sugar intake, and 79% examine food labels for sugar types. While sugar remains the predominant sweetener, sales have decreased by 16% from 2011 to 2016.
More consumers than ever are turning to natural alternatives, but the transition to new sweeteners can be challenging for manufacturers. A recent Mintel report highlights that while there is interest in natural sugar substitutes, many consumers hesitate to pay a premium for them. Specifically, 26% of consumers express a desire for more products utilizing naturally sourced sugar alternatives, yet only a small fraction is willing to spend extra.
Alternative sweeteners such as coconut sugar, agave syrup, fruit juice concentrates, and honey are often promoted as healthier substitutes for refined sugar, perceived as more natural or nutritious. However, while they may contain minimal trace minerals, their overall health benefits are limited. All these alternatives qualify as added sugars from both nutritional and labeling perspectives, contributing to tooth decay just like refined sugar.
Despite this, honey has seen a remarkable increase in sales, benefiting from a perception of natural health. According to Mintel, three-quarters of respondents consider it a healthy sweetener. In contrast, sales of syrups and molasses declined by 2% from 2011 to 2016, while honey sales surged by 54% during the same timeframe.
Many alternative sugars boast a lower glycemic index compared to regular sugar, making them appealing to diabetics due to their slower impact on blood sugar levels. However, these alternatives often contain higher fructose levels, which could be detrimental to non-diabetic individuals. Unlike glucose, which can be utilized by nearly all body cells for energy, fructose is primarily metabolized in the liver and can be more readily converted to fat.
With the upcoming mandatory implementation of the revised Nutrition Facts label, food manufacturers must specifically list added sugars, providing them with added incentive to reduce caloric sweeteners, even those that are natural. Among the lower-calorie options, 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 they are used in similar amounts. Conversely, high-intensity sweeteners are extremely potent and are used in very small quantities.
For those seeking natural ingredients, the choices narrow further. Naturally derived bulk sweeteners include sugar alcohols—also known as polyols—such as xylitol, maltitol, isomalt, sorbitol, and erythritol. These sweeteners originate from plant products and berries and are produced by modifying carbohydrates through fermentation or other processes. The most recognized naturally derived high-intensity sweeteners encompass stevia and monk fruit extracts. Stevia is created by drying leaves and extracting sweet components through water and crystallization, while monk fruit extracts are derived from the fruit’s pressed juice.
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 manufacturers face in replacing added sugars. “Replacing added sugars is not a simple task,” she remarked in an email to FoodDive. “High-potency sweeteners, such as stevia and monk fruit extract, allow manufacturers to significantly lower sugar content without sacrificing flavor. However, because these ingredients are used in minimal amounts, they do not contribute functional attributes like bulk and mouthfeel.”
To address this, she recommends blending sweeteners with fibers to reduce sugars while mimicking the expected taste and texture. Professor Kathy Groves, head of science and microscopy at Leatherhead Food Research in the UK, emphasizes that while there is a strong interest in reducing sugar, it’s not merely about replacing sugar with another sweetener. “Sugar serves multiple roles in food,” she explained, affecting not only flavor but also the structural integrity of baked goods, the texture of chocolate, and various sensory attributes.
Groves’s team employs a method they call “blueprinting,” which involves mapping a product’s ingredients and how they interact to create desired qualities. They gather consumer feedback on what they appreciate about traditional products before conducting expert assessments of taste, aroma, and texture. After that, they analyze the impact of ingredients on various attributes at a microscopic level, identifying the most suitable alternative sweeteners to replicate those qualities.
Combining sweeteners is a common strategy, given that no alternative perfectly replicates sugar’s behavior. A popular blend is stevia and erythritol. Erythritol provides a cooling effect, suitable for sugar-free mints, while blending it with stevia can counteract undesirable flavors in beverages like lemonade. Additionally, some polyols have laxative effects, but erythritol does not, leading to a thoughtful balance in formulations.
Cindy Beeren, director of sensory, consumer, and market insights at Leatherhead, notes that understanding the sweetness profile over time is crucial. “Some sweeteners have a high initial sweetness but a delayed onset, leading to a synergistic effect,” she explained. Manufacturers must also consider unexpected consequences when combining sweeteners, such as alterations in bulk or caramelization.
Solubility poses another challenge, particularly for high-intensity sweeteners. The small quantities used can make it difficult to achieve even distribution in mixtures, while some bulk sweeteners can absorb moisture, complicating formulations. For example, isomalt is a suitable choice for hard candies due to its low moisture absorption.
Lastly, Beeren warns that reducing sugar may inadvertently increase the overall calorie count of a product. “If consumers see ‘reduced sugar’ on a label, they often assume it means reduced calories,” she indicated. In some cases, cutting sugar can result in higher fat content, leading to an increase in calories.
All alternative natural sweeteners come at a premium compared to sugar, leaving manufacturers to weigh the long-term benefits against the costs. Beyond the higher price of the sweeteners themselves, there are “hidden costs” associated with reformulating products and making extensive changes to handling systems, storage, and ingredient monitoring.
However, consumer and industry trends indicate a growing demand for lower added sugar and a heightened interest in natural products. Manufacturers now face the challenge of finding the ideal balance between cost, naturalness, caloric content, and flavor—especially as they explore options that may include ingredients like calcium citrate D3 to enhance the nutritional profile of their offerings while also appealing to health-conscious consumers.