Sweet but not too sweet

According to the International Food Information Council’s (IFIC) 2024 survey, 66% of consumers reported trying to reduce their sugar consumption, up from 61% in 2023.¹ The most cited reason for limiting sugar consumption was to improve their diet in general (49%), while 43% said they wanted to avoid gaining weight, and 42% said they wanted to prevent a future health condition. For the most part, 60% of consumers said they were cutting back on added sugars, while 30% said they are cutting back on all types of sugars (both added sugars and those sugars naturally present in fruit). Interestingly, sugar remains the preferred sweetener among consumers (30%), followed by low and no-calorie sweeteners such as aspartame, sucralose, and stevia (20%). Only 4% of consumers preferred sugar alcohols or low-calorie sugars such as allulose.

For those who preferred sugar, 43% said they preferred sugar because it was a natural source of sweetness, and they preferred the taste. Of those who preferred low and no-calorie sweeteners, 39% said it was to reduce calories, 34% said they were trying to limit or avoid other sweeteners, and 27% said they preferred the taste. Of the sugar alternatives, monkfruit and stevia ranked highest in perceived safety of the ingredient, while aspartame and allulose ranked the lowest.

Clearly, perceptions around preferred sweeteners can be complex. Consumers want to avoid sugar, yet they prefer sugar over other sweeteners. It’s easy to get in the weeds about the perceived health and safety of certain sweeteners. For example, sugar can be divided into refined sugar and raw cane sugar. People who prefer raw cane sugar perceive it as a cleaner option because it is less processed than refined sugar. Similarly, while the survey from IFIC lumped aspartame and stevia into the same group, the consumers who prefer these respective no- and low-calorie sweeteners can be quite different. As much as sweeteners like stevia and monk fruit offer a low-calorie and low-glycemic alternative to sugar, they are also considered by many to be a more natural alternative to aspartame.

Concerns about processed foods and their safety are reaching a fever pitch as the new director of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Robert F. Kennedy Jr., sets his sights on food safety, and “ultra-processed foods” in particular. The recently published MAHA Report, for example, focuses on the health of American children and the impact processed foods have on their health.²

With regard to “ultra-processed sugars,” the report states: “Found in 75% of packaged foods, the average American consumes 17 teaspoons of added sugars daily, which amounts to 60 pounds annually. This substantial intake, particularly of high fructose corn syrup and other added sugars, may play a significant role in childhood obesity, type 2 diabetes, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD).”

As such, the policies of the Trump administration are bound to substantially increase the need for sugar reduction technologies and clean label alternative sweeteners. The White House is already having substantial influence on major consumer packaged goods brands. For example, Coca-Cola announced in an earnings call on Tuesday, July 22, that the company would add a Coke sweetened with cane sugar to the U.S. market. As you may be aware, consumers trying to avoid high fructose corn syrup often turn to Mexican Coke, as it is made with cane sugar. This announcement from Coke came a week after President Trump announced discussing the change to cane sugar with Coca-Cola.

References

1. International Food Information Council. 2024 IFIC Food and Health Survey. June 20, 2024.
2. The White House. Make Our Children Healthy Again Assessment. May 22, 2025. https://www.whitehouse.gov/maha/ (Accessed 2025-07-28).
3. Chappell, B. Coca-Cola says it will use U.S. cane sugar in a new Coke, a plan pushed by Trump. NPR. July 22, 2025. https://www.npr.org/2025/07/22/nx-s1-5476161/coca-cola-cane-sugar-coke-trump-recipe (Accessed 2025-07-28)