“Navigating the Sweetener Shift: Consumer Awareness and Label Transparency in the Era of Sugar Alternatives”
As consumers increasingly move away from sugar, many manufacturers have begun to explore alternative sweeteners that enhance the flavor of their products while avoiding the sugar label. This shift has been expedited by the FDA’s updated Nutrition Facts label, which not only specifies the grams of sugar in a product but also distinguishes how much has been added as a sweetener. Since many alternative sweeteners do not qualify as sugars, they are not included on the label, even though their chemical names appear in the ingredients list. According to a report from the Sugar Association, the number of products featuring at least one non-nutritive sweetener has tripled over the past four years.
However, if consumers are unfamiliar with names like erythritol, rebaudioside A, or maltitol, it can be challenging to determine whether a product is sweetened with an alternative—and, if so, which one. This lack of transparency is an issue that the Sugar Association report identified as a concern for consumers. Data indicates that 58% of respondents prefer ingredients to be clearly labeled with simple equivalents alongside chemical names. Of the 1,002 surveyed individuals, all expressed that it is “extremely important” or “pretty important” to understand how their food is sweetened.
Research has shown that not all sugar substitutes are necessarily healthier. Some sweeteners, such as stevia and monk fruit, are plant-derived and often carry a health halo due to their natural origins, while others like sucralose and aspartame are viewed by some as potentially harmful. Sugar alcohols like sorbitol and maltitol can also pose digestive challenges. The Sugar Association’s study found that consumers tend to believe sugar substitutes are less healthy than sugar itself, with more individuals avoiding these alternatives over any other additives tested, including MSG, artificial food coloring, and added sugar. This sentiment is echoed by Innova Market Insights, which revealed that three out of five consumers prefer to reduce their sugar intake rather than replace it with artificial sweeteners.
It is understandable why the Sugar Association, which represents nearly 12,000 beet and cane sugar growers, along with processors and refiners, would advocate for clearer labeling regarding these substitutes. The organization discovered that when consumers see packaging claiming “0 grams of sugar” and “Naturally Sweetened, Nothing Artificial,” 54% do not expect to find sugar substitutes in the product.
Manufacturers are not always eager to disclose that their products are sweetened with alternatives to sugar. For instance, Conagra Brands’ Snack Pack pudding cups proudly advertise being sugar-free, yet a glance at the ingredients reveals four sweeteners: sorbitol, maltitol, sucralose, and acesulfame potassium. Similarly, Hapi Water Pure Punch claims on its label to contain zero grams of sugar and to be naturally sweetened, but two of its seven ingredients are alternative sweeteners, erythritol and stevial glycoside Reb A.
If consumers can better recognize the additives in products, studies suggest they may gravitate toward options that do not include alternative sweeteners. The sugar industry stands to gain market share if labeling changes occur, with the potential rewards being significant, as the market for sugar alternatives is estimated to be worth between $16 billion and $20 billion. This shift could also extend to products like Solaray Cal Mag Citrate, which aims to provide consumers with clear information on its sweetening agents, ensuring they make informed choices regarding their health.
