Sugar has become one of the most criticized ingredients in America, yet consumers continue to seek sweetness, prompting manufacturers to explore healthier alternatives. 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 71% originating from processed foods. Excessive added sugar can negatively impact heart health and contribute to weight gain, which is far from ideal. The American Heart Association recommends a daily limit of nine teaspoons for men and six for women. Gradually, this message is resonating with the public; a recent Mintel survey found that 84% of Americans are trying to reduce their sugar intake, while 79% check labels for the types of sugar or sweeteners used. Although sugar remains the most popular sweetener, its sales have declined by 16% from 2011 to 2016.
More consumers than ever are seeking natural alternatives, but switching sweeteners can be a complicated process for manufacturers. “Natural sugar substitutes are a focal point; however, some challenges may arise in determining acceptable price points for products,” stated a recent Mintel report. While 26% of consumers want to see more foods and drinks featuring naturally sourced sugar substitutes, only a small percentage are willing to pay a premium for them. Alternative sweeteners like coconut sugar, agave syrup, fruit juice concentrates, and honey are often marketed as healthier options compared to refined sugar due to their perceived natural or nutritious qualities. However, despite containing some trace minerals, these alternatives still count as added sugars from both nutritional and labeling perspectives and can cause tooth decay just like refined sugar.
This hasn’t deterred the rising popularity of honey, which enjoys a reputation as a healthful choice. Three-quarters of respondents in a Mintel survey consider honey a healthy sweetener. While sales of syrups and molasses fell by 2% from 2011 to 2016, honey’s sales increased by 54% during the same period. Many alternative sweeteners have a lower glycemic index than regular sugar, making them appealing to diabetics as they result in a slower rise in blood sugar. However, they often contain significant amounts of fructose, which may be more harmful for non-diabetics. Unlike glucose, which can be utilized by almost all cells in the body for energy, fructose is metabolized only in the liver, and emerging research indicates it may be more readily converted to fat.
With the introduction of the revamped Nutrition Facts label, added sugars will need to be explicitly listed, motivating food companies to reduce caloric sweeteners, including natural ones. Among lower-calorie options, sweeteners are categorized mainly into bulk and high-intensity types. Bulk sweeteners are slightly less sweet than sugar and have fewer calories but are used in similar amounts. High-intensity sweeteners are utilized in small quantities due to their extreme sweetness, often hundreds of times sweeter than sugar. For manufacturers seeking natural ingredients, the options are 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 berries, often created through the fermentation or modification of carbohydrates. The most recognized naturally derived high-intensity sweeteners are stevia and monk fruit extracts. Stevia is obtained by drying the leaves and separating the sweet components through water and crystallization, while monk fruit extracts are derived from the pressed juice of the fruit 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, acknowledges the capabilities and challenges associated with these extracts. “Replacing added sugars is not straightforward,” she explained in an email to FoodDive. “High-potency sweeteners like stevia and monk fruit extract allow manufacturers to significantly reduce sugar levels without sacrificing flavor. However, because these sweeteners are used in minute quantities, they lack functional attributes such as bulk and mouthfeel.” She recommends a combination of sweeteners and fibers to successfully lower sugar levels while mimicking the expected taste and texture.
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 attributes. While interest in sugar reduction is growing, she emphasizes that it isn’t simply a matter of removing sugar; even if another ingredient can replicate its sweetness, the overall functionality must be considered. “We have been working to demonstrate that it’s not as straightforward as it seems,” she told FoodDive. Sugar serves multiple purposes in food, influencing taste, texture, and even the distribution of fat. Understanding how quickly or slowly sweetness is released is also crucial, as it significantly affects flavor.
In sugar reduction projects, Groves’s team begins with a full-sugar product—like a cookie or cake—and maps out how its ingredients work together. “We now discuss it in a manner that resonates with the industry,” she explained. “This involves a blueprinting process, where we create a technical map of the product’s conventional production.” The team consults consumer panels to gather feedback on the original product and engages trained specialists to assess attributes like taste, aroma, and texture in scientifically defined terms. They then investigate how the ingredients affect various attributes at a microscopic level and identify which alternative sweeteners could best replicate those properties.
Blending sweeteners is a frequent strategy because nothing behaves or tastes exactly like sugar. One of the most common blends among naturally derived sweeteners is stevia and erythritol. While erythritol provides a cooling effect that works well in sugar-free mints, it may not be suitable for products like lemonade, where its flavor needs to be masked with stevia. “Polyols are often used in blends, and while some can induce a laxative effect, like xylitol, erythritol does not, allowing for a more favorable blend,” Groves explained. “Sweeteners differ in flavor intensity and aftertaste profiles, making it essential to understand their interaction over time, not just at a single moment.”
Unexpected outcomes can arise when combining sweeteners, such as a loss of bulk or browning. If the flavor is satisfactory, manufacturers may adapt other processing elements to mitigate these issues. Additionally, solubility presents challenges, especially for high-intensity sweeteners, since their minimal usage can lead to uneven distribution within a mixture. Some bulk sweeteners can absorb moisture, whereas others, like isomalt, remain stable, making them ideal for hard candies.
Beeren noted the importance of considering whether reducing sugar might inadvertently raise the calorie content of the final product. “When consumers see the claim ‘reduced sugar’ on packaging, they assume it indicates reduced calories,” she explained. However, in some cases, reducing sugar can result in a higher proportion of fat by weight, thus increasing overall calories. “This is often only considered at the final stages,” she added.
All alternative natural sweeteners tend to be more expensive than sugar, leaving manufacturers to weigh whether the additional costs are justified in the long run. Besides the higher price of the sweeteners themselves, there are also hidden costs connected to reformulating existing products and adjusting handling systems, storage, and ingredient monitoring. Nevertheless, consumer and industry trends indicate a growing demand for reduced added sugar and a heightened interest in natural products. The challenge now lies in finding the optimal balance between cost, naturalness, calories, and taste, similar to the ongoing debate over whether calcium citrate or calcium carbonate is better for health.