The Sweet Shift: Navigating the Rise of Natural Sweeteners in a Sugar-Conscious Market
Sugar has become the most criticized ingredient in the United States, prompting manufacturers to search for healthier alternatives to meet 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% coming from commercially prepared foods. Excessive added sugar can harm heart health and contribute to weight gain, making this intake less than ideal. The American Heart Association recommends a daily limit of nine teaspoons for men and six for women. Gradually, this awareness is increasing; according to Mintel, 84% of Americans are trying to reduce their sugar intake, and 79% check labels for different sugars or sweeteners. Despite sugar’s ongoing popularity, sales declined by 16% from 2011 to 2016.
More consumers are seeking natural alternatives, but transitioning to different sweeteners poses challenges for manufacturers. A recent Mintel report notes that while natural sugar substitutes present an opportunity, companies may face hurdles in finding acceptable price points. Twenty-six percent of consumers want to see more food and beverages made with naturally sourced sugar substitutes, yet only a small fraction is willing to pay a premium for them.
Alternative sweeteners like 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, they possess limited health benefits, as they all qualify as added sugars from both nutritional and labeling perspectives and can cause tooth decay similar to refined sugar. This perception hasn’t hindered honey sales, which have increased by 54% from 2011 to 2016, as three-quarters of respondents in a Mintel survey view it as a healthy option. While syrup and molasses sales fell 2% during the same period, honey has bucked that trend.
Many alternative sugars boast a lower glycemic index than regular sugar, making them appealing to diabetics for their slower impact on blood sugar levels. However, they often contain high levels of fructose, which may be detrimental to non-diabetic individuals. Unlike glucose, which can be utilized by nearly all body cells for energy, fructose is metabolized only in the liver, and emerging research indicates it may be converted to fat more readily.
With the upcoming mandatory Nutrition Facts label changes, added sugars will need to be explicitly listed, motivating food companies to reduce caloric sweeteners, including natural ones, in their products. Lower-calorie sweeteners are primarily divided into two categories: bulk sweeteners and high-intensity sweeteners. Bulk sweeteners are slightly less sweet than sugar and have lower calories but are used in similar quantities, while high-intensity sweeteners are used in tiny amounts due to their potency.
For those seeking natural ingredients, the options are further narrowed. Naturally derived bulk sweeteners include sugar alcohols, or polyols, such as xylitol, maltitol, isomalt, sorbitol, and erythritol, which are derived from plant sources and berries through fermentation or other processes. The best-known high-intensity sweeteners include stevia and monk fruit extracts, produced through drying leaves and separating sweet components from fruit juice, respectively.
Tate & Lyle provides both monk fruit and stevia extracts under their Purefruit and Tasteva brands. Abigail Storms, the company’s vice president and global platform lead for sweeteners, emphasizes the complexities of replacing added sugars. “High-potency sweeteners like stevia and monk fruit extract allow manufacturers to significantly lower sugar content without sacrificing taste. However, their small quantities in formulations do not offer functional attributes, such as bulk and mouthfeel,” she explained.
Professor Kathy Groves, head of science and microscopy at Leatherhead Food Research in the UK, highlights that reducing sugar is not as straightforward as merely substituting sweetness. Sugar serves multiple roles in food, affecting not just taste but also the texture of cakes and cookies, the snap of chocolate, caramelization, and more. To effectively reduce sugar, Groves’ team analyzes the original full-sugar product to understand how its ingredients work together before mapping out a blueprint for reformulation.
The team gathers consumer feedback on what they enjoy about the standard product and employs trained specialists to assess characteristics like taste and texture in more precise terms. They then examine how ingredients influence texture, color, and other attributes at a microscopic level, ultimately identifying which sweeteners can best replicate those properties.
Blending sweeteners is a common strategy since nothing quite replicates sugar’s characteristics. For example, stevia and erythritol are frequently combined, with erythritol’s cooling effect working well in sugar-free mints, while blending with stevia can help balance flavors in beverages like lemonade. However, different sweeteners have varying flavor intensities and aftertastes, which can influence the final product.
Cindy Beeren, director of sensory, consumer, and market insights at Leatherhead, notes that understanding the sweetness profile over time is crucial since some sweeteners have delayed onset sweetness. Combining sweeteners can yield unexpected results, such as changes in bulk or caramelization, but adjustments in processing can resolve these issues.
Moreover, solubility is a concern, especially for high-intensity sweeteners, as their small quantities can lead to uneven distribution in mixtures. Some bulk sweeteners can absorb water, creating challenges in formulation. Isomalt, for instance, does not absorb moisture, making it suitable for hard candies.
Beeren also emphasizes the need to consider whether reducing sugar could inadvertently increase the overall calorie count of a product. “When consumers see ‘reduced sugar’ on a label, they often assume it also means fewer calories,” she explained. In some cases, eliminating sugar can result in a greater proportion of fat, leading to higher calorie content.
All alternative natural sweeteners generally cost more than traditional sugar, forcing manufacturers to weigh the long-term value of these investments. In addition to the higher price of sweeteners, there are hidden costs associated with reformulating existing products, including adjustments to handling processes, ingredient storage, and monitoring.
Despite the challenges, consumer and industry trends indicate a growing demand for lower added sugar and a heightened interest in natural products. Manufacturers now face the task of balancing cost, naturalness, calorie content, and taste to meet this evolving market. Additionally, attention should be paid to the potential link between certain sweeteners and health concerns, such as the risk of kidney stones associated with excessive intake of calcium citrate, which may arise from dietary choices influenced by sweetener selection.
