Are There Any Good Sweeteners?

It seems like everything has sugar in it. Or HFCS. Or something else. Is anything good anymore?

• Health
• Ingredients
• Food Science

For as long as I can remember, there’s been a “war on sugar”. A web search suggests this goes back as far as the late 1950s, but it gained renewed traction in the 2000s and again in early 2026. However, humans (and Americans in particular, it would seem) have a sweet tooth, so we’ve spent the last several decades trying to find loopholes so we can eat food that “tastes good” while still feeling like we’re being healthy. However, these monikers for various ways of avoiding sugar are confusing at best and misleading at worst. As with anything, there are trade-offs. Sure, non-sugar sweeteners may not be sugar, but are they causing the same problems or are they causing new problems?

High Fructose Corn Syrup

High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) came to prominence because of rising sugar prices and the abundance of corn, as well as the ease and cost-effectiveness of the process to produce it. Despite many studies, no convincing evidence exists to suggest that HFCS is less healthy than sucrose (table sugar); however the sheer number of food and beverages (many breads and nearly all soda in the US) that contain HFCS means that there is a clear correlation between HFCS consumption and negative health indicators like obesity, simply because there is a causal link between HFCS-containing products and the health risks.

However, just because it’s not worse than sugar doesn’t mean it’s better. It is still highly-refined, meaning it’s much easier for the body to absorb into the bloodstream and metabolize, meaning quicker, higher highs and a quicker crash afterward. Some people (myself included) also may notice a difference in taste.

”Sugar Free”

“Sugar Free” might be the most insidious of all the phrases on this list. It sounds almost like a synonym for “unsweetened”, but instead it’s bluntly omitting what it’s actually sweetened with. “Contains aspartame” just wouldn’t sell quite as well, even though today that’s most likely what it really means.

Some of the more common alternatives to sugar and HFCS (fructose is a sugar, so HFCS wouldn’t meet the standard of “sugar free”) are aspartame, sucralose, erythritol, and xylitol. Aspartame and sucralose are both artificial sweeteners, though erythritol and xylitol sometimes avoid being labeled as such because they are found in nature, albeit at much lower concentrations (and those that are used as a sweetener are manufactured to obtain the quantities needed).

These are commonly found in “diet”, “zero sugar”, and “zero calorie” options.

All of these artificial sweeteners have been linked to health issues; aspartame to cancer (by WHO), sucralose to DNA damage, and the others to an increased risk of heart attack and stroke (directly, not through obesity).

For those with a more discerning palate, sugar free foods and beverages might taste “off” or have a slightly syrupy or chemical aftertaste.

”No Artificial Sweeteners”

It frustrates me when I see products labeled as containing “No Artificial Sweeteners”. While I feel like “Sugar Free” is “lying without lying”, saying something has “No Artificial Sweeteners” is so vague that it tells you basically nothing. Common “not artificial” sweeteners are sugar, honey, stevia, and monkfruit.

The first two are OK; those are both natural sweeteners, though sugar (sucrose) does have to be extracted from sugar beets or sugar cane, and are basically the same sugar as would naturally be in whatever is being sweetened. They’re the most one-to-one with what the human body expects from something sweet, like a fruit (fructose).

Stevia and monkfruit, however, are significantly sweeter for the same amount compared to sugar and honey. It’s because of this that I feel that calling them “natural” is a bit of a stretch. They may be found in nature, but so is the fructose in HFCS.

”Naturally Sweetened”

Also misleading, this does not mean that the food or drink only has whatever sweetness its core ingredients impart, without an additional ingredient added specifically for sweetness (that’s “Unsweetened”). Instead, it means essentially the same thing as “No Artificial Sweeteners” and could imply that honey, stevia, or even a sugar alcohol like xylitol was used.

”No Added Sugar”

At this point, we start moving backwards. “No added sugar” does not mean “no added sweeteners”. In fact, it’s probably the most permissive of all of these. Anything under “Sugar Free”, as well as “Naturally Sweetened”, is fair game.

”Unsweetened”

This is the only safe option. If you do want something that is sweetened with a specific ingredient, like sugar or honey, look for packaging that specifically says “sweetened with X”. However, many things are inherently sweet and don’t need additional sweeteners, like fruit, some vegetables, milk, and bread. Other things don’t inherently have sweetness (maybe even no calories) but also don’t need sweeteners except if you’re used to a high-sugar diet (iced tea comes to mind).

Is real Sugar any better?

Is the “war on sugar” warranted? Well, yes, to a certain degree. Sugar (in all its various forms) is a very readily available source of energy with a very satisfying flavor that doesn’t fill us up much, so it’s very easy to overload when we don’t really need it, which in turn gets stored as fat (or potentially can interfere with burning fat).

If possible, prefer the unsweetened options; these are probably the most natural and historically nutritious options. However, if you need to add sweetness (e.g. to pancakes or a sauce), prefer something like honey or maybe even table sugar. However, keep in mind that table sugar is also pretty refined and way more readily absorbed than sugars from raw fruit.