Overview of low-sugar product innovation
- Social media, GLP-1s and sugar taxes are reshaping demand
- Low-sugar products need broader health benefits to differentiate
- Sugar substitutes may affect gut health and glycaemic response
- Manufacturers should consider cumulative dietary impacts beyond formulations
- Long-term success requires balancing nutrition, taste, texture and health
Reducing the amount of sugar in food products has become a hot topic for the food industry again. Factors such as social media trends and the growing use of GLP-1 agonists have turned the consumer spotlight back onto the health risks of too much sugar. At the same time, governments are trying to improve public health through interventions such as so-called “sugar taxes”.
However, focusing solely on reducing sugar levels risks missing a bigger opportunity. With low-sugar becoming mainstream, how do you make your reduced-sugar product stand out in the market?
Sugar reduction is a business opportunity
Empowered by social media, today’s health-aware consumers are no longer satisfied with avoiding negatives. They actively seek out products that bring specific health benefits. Manufacturers can meet the demands of these consumers by thinking about the product’s overall health impact and not just its sugar content – greatly improving the chances of a successful launch.
A wider perspective also provides more resilience against changes in health trends. History tells us that, when it comes to consumers’ health priorities, the spotlight can rapidly shift. Today’s healthier option can easily become tomorrow’s “must avoid”, even when the science disagrees. Think, for example, how opinions on artificial sweeteners have changed despite multiple studies finding them safe at normal dietary levels. Social media has amplified the power and rate of change of these opinion trends.
Focusing on health rather than just sugar helps manufacturers create products that appeal to today’s health-aware consumers and remain relevant as the health spotlight moves on to the next “bogeyman”.
Beware the hidden consequences
What does that wider perspective mean in concrete terms? One aspect is the need to consider the “unintended consequences” of a sugar reduction strategy. For example, sugar alcohols (or polyols) can add low-calorie sweetness without the stigma of “artificial” sweeteners. Moreover, certain fibres, such as inulin, mimic both the sweetness and the bulking capabilities of sugar while potentially bringing additional and sometimes unique health benefits of their own.
However, we also need to consider how the microbes in our digestive tract would react to these changes. Both polyols and inulin can alter gut fermentation, impacting the composition of the gut microbiota and potentially causing bloating and other gut problems. And any change to the carbohydrate content of a product could impact the oral microbiota, potentially leading to stickier dental plaque films that are harder to remove, resulting in poorer dental health, not better.
But what if we could reduce the amount of sugar in a formulation without replacing it with another sweetener? Certain enzymes can be used to convert lactose, starches and other carbohydrates into smaller sugars in the product. There would be less sugar in the recipe, so the product could be labelled low-sugar or reduced-sugar. Yet the product would still have a nice sweetness and meet clean-label requirements. These smaller sugars would also cause a very different blood glucose response within the body, potentially leading to more intense blood glucose spikes. This could be important for people managing diabetes but also those trying to avoid a mid-afternoon sugar dip.
No product exists in isolation
In practice, significantly reducing sugar levels in a product will likely require a combination of these and other strategies. Manufacturers also need to keep in mind that their products form part of a wider diet. Anyone choosing your low-sugar product will, presumably, be consuming other reduced-sugar products throughout the day – and any effects will be cumulative.
Of course, it isn’t possible to predict which or how many other low-sugar products somebody will consume. It also is impossible for manufacturers to predict how an individual will respond to certain sugar-reduction strategies: some people, for example, can have negative reactions to even the smallest amounts of polyols or inulin. So, it will be important to choose sugar-reduction strategies that minimise the overall impact on factors such as microbiota composition and glycaemic response. At the same time, prioritising factors such as prebiotic effects and appetite control could improve the overall positive impact of low-sugar products.
That is, of course, easier said than done. Each product is unique and the result of many complex interactions between ingredients, processes and product matrices. A clear understanding of these interactions – and how they impact microbiota and health – is essential for creating low-sugar products that deliver on health but also taste and texture. But that understanding and the tools to apply it do exist; the timing is right to go beyond just low sugar.
Building today’s products for tomorrow’s health concerns
Reducing sugar may help meet today’s regulatory requirements and market expectations, but history suggests that health trends never stay still for long. Just as consumers turned away from low-fat products that compensated with more sugar, they are going to start looking at the wider health impact of low-sugar foods.
Manufacturers that think about health impact as a whole – considering factors such as glycaemic response, gut health, satiety and overall nutritional value – rather than just focussing on reducing sugar will be better placed to create products that survive the next health trend and build long-term market share.
