Sugar has become one of the most criticized ingredients in America, leading consumers to seek out healthier sweetness options, prompting manufacturers to explore natural alternatives. How do these natural sweeteners compare? According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the average American consumes nearly 23 teaspoons of added sugar daily, with 71% of that sugar sourced from processed foods. This excessive intake is far from ideal, as too much added sugar can negatively impact heart health and contribute to weight gain. The American Heart Association recommends a daily limit of only nine teaspoons for men and six for women. Gradually, awareness is increasing, with 84% of Americans reporting that they are reducing their sugar intake, according to Mintel, and 79% checking labels for the types of sweeteners used. Although sugar remains the most commonly used sweetener, its sales plummeted by 16% from 2011 to 2016.
More consumers are now turning to natural alternatives, but switching sweeteners poses challenges for manufacturers. “Natural sugar substitutes appear to be a promising area; however, some growing pains may arise as companies try to find acceptable price points,” stated a recent Mintel report. Interestingly, 26% of consumers express a desire for more food and beverages that utilize naturally sourced sugar substitutes, although only a small fraction are willing to pay a premium for these options.
Sweeteners like coconut sugar, agave syrup, fruit juice concentrates, and honey are often marketed as healthier alternatives to refined sugar because they are perceived as more natural. Despite containing some trace minerals, their health benefits are limited. From both a nutritional and labeling standpoint, these options still count as added sugars, contributing to tooth decay just like refined sugar. Nevertheless, honey sales have surged, benefiting from its reputation as a natural health product, with three-quarters of respondents in a Mintel survey considering honey to be healthy. While sales of syrups and molasses fell by 2% from 2011 to 2016, honey sales increased by an impressive 54% during the same period.
Many alternative sugars do have a lower glycemic index than sugar, making them more appealing to diabetics due to their slower impact on blood sugar levels. However, these alternatives often contain high levels of fructose, which could be detrimental to non-diabetic individuals. While glucose is utilized for energy by nearly every body cell, fructose is metabolized only in the liver, and emerging research suggests it may be more readily converted into fat.
With the upcoming mandate for the revamped Nutrition Facts label, which will require the specific listing of added sugars, food manufacturers have extra motivation to reduce caloric sweeteners, including natural options. Among low-calorie alternatives, sweeteners for sugar replacement can be categorized into two main groups: bulk and high-intensity sweeteners. Bulk sweeteners are slightly less sweet than sugar and are used in similar amounts, while high-intensity sweeteners are used sparingly due to their extreme sweetness.
For those looking for natural ingredients, options are further limited. Naturally derived bulk sweeteners include sugar alcohols—known as polyols—such as xylitol, maltitol, isomalt, sorbitol, and erythritol. These sweeteners are derived from plant products and undergo processes like fermentation to alter carbohydrates. The best-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 come from the fruit’s pressed juice.
Tate & Lyle offers 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 simple task,” she explained in an email to FoodDive. “High-potency sweeteners, such as stevia and monk fruit extract, allow manufacturers to significantly reduce sugar content without sacrificing flavor. However, since these ingredients are utilized in minimal amounts, they lack functional properties like bulk and mouthfeel.” She recommends blending sweeteners with fibers to lower sugar content while replicating the taste and texture that consumers expect.
Professor Kathy Groves, head of science and microscopy at Leatherhead Food Research in the UK, specializes in understanding ingredient interactions in food and beverages. She emphasizes that while the interest in sugar reduction is high, simply removing sugar is not straightforward. Sugar serves many roles in food, influencing not only flavor but also the structure of baked goods, the snap of chocolate, and the browning and aroma of products. It is essential to consider how quickly or slowly sweetness is released, as this significantly impacts flavor. Groves’ team begins by analyzing a company’s original full-sugar product, such as cookies or cakes, to understand ingredient interactions.
They create a “blueprint” of the product, mapping out how everything functions together, similar to architectural blueprints for buildings. Consumer panels provide feedback on what they like about the standard product, while trained specialists analyze characteristics like taste, aroma, and texture using scientific terminology. They also examine how ingredient interactions affect texture, color, and other attributes at a microscopic level, ultimately identifying which alternative sweeteners might best replicate those qualities.
Sweetener blends are a common solution because no alternative perfectly mimics sugar. A popular combination is stevia and erythritol; erythritol’s cooling effect works well in sugar-free mints but can be undesirable in other products, such as lemonade, where blending it with stevia can help mask that effect. “Polyols often appear in blends, and some, like xylitol, can have a laxative effect. However, erythritol doesn’t, so you might use less xylitol and more erythritol,” Groves explained.
Cindy Beeren, director of sensory, consumer, and market insights at Leatherhead, notes that this is why stevia and monk fruit are frequently combined. “By using a low concentration of stevia to reduce bitterness, you can enhance sweetness with monk fruit,” she stated. “Sweeteners vary greatly in their sweetness intensity and onset time, often creating a synergistic effect. It’s crucial to understand the sweetness profile over time, not just at a single moment.”
Combining sweeteners can lead to unexpected outcomes, such as reduced bulk or caramelization. If the flavor is satisfactory, manufacturers may adjust processing elements to address these challenges. Solubility is another consideration, particularly for high-intensity sweeteners, as their minimal usage can hinder even distribution in mixtures. Some bulk sweeteners can also attract water, while isomalt is a good choice for hard candies due to its non-hygroscopic properties.
Lastly, Beeren emphasizes the importance of assessing whether reducing sugar might inadvertently raise the overall calorie count of the final product. “When consumers see ‘reduced sugar’ on packaging, they often assume it also means lower calories,” she noted. In certain cases, cutting sugar can lead to a higher proportion of fat by weight, resulting in increased caloric content. “This is often only considered at the end of development,” she added.
All alternative natural sweeteners come at a higher cost than traditional sugar, leaving manufacturers to weigh whether these additional expenses are justified long-term. Beyond the sweetener’s cost, there are also hidden expenses associated with reformulating existing products and making large-scale adjustments to handling, storage, and ingredient monitoring systems. However, consumer and industry trends indicate a growing demand for lower added sugar and an increased interest in natural products. It is now up to manufacturers to find the ideal balance between cost, natural ingredients, calorie content, and taste, including considerations for essential nutrients like calcium and calcium citrate.