The future is sweet (and low carb): new sweeteners that could revolutionize the market
In recent years, interest in low-calorie, sugar-free, or reduced-glycemic-impact sweeteners has grown significantly. Those following a low-carb or ketogenic diet often look for sugar alternatives that allow them to reduce carbohydrates without completely sacrificing sweet taste.
But there's an important point that is often overlooked. In the world of sweeteners, it's not enough to ask if an ingredient is "natural," "innovative," or "promising." You also need to ask: Is it authorized in the European Union? Is it suitable for the intended food use? Does it really work in baking? Does it have a pleasant taste? Does it have undesirable effects if consumed in high quantities? Is it compatible with a quality low-carb product?
Because in low-carb, it's not just about removing carbohydrates. It's also about what you put in their place.
In this article, we will look at some new-generation sweeteners, along with some sweeteners already on the European market, distinguishing between what is already concretely usable and what is still under evaluation.
A necessary premise: USA and Europe are not the same
When talking about new sweeteners, many articles cite the American market. This is normal: the United States often leads in the commercial introduction of new ingredients.
However, for those who produce or sell food in Italy and the European Union, the crucial point is different: the ingredient must be authorized according to European regulations. A sweetener may be considered usable in the United States and not yet in Europe. Or it may only be permitted in certain forms, concentrations, or product categories.
For this reason, it is important to always distinguish between:
- FDA evaluation in the United States;
- EFSA authorization and EU regulations;
- actual commercial availability;
- permitted use in a specific food product.
This distinction is fundamental to avoid confusion.
Allulose: very interesting, but not yet authorized in Europe
Allulose, also known as D-psicose, is one of the most discussed ingredients in the world of low-carb sweeteners. From a chemical perspective, it is a rare monosaccharide, naturally present in small quantities in some foods. It has a taste very close to sugar and a very low caloric content compared to sucrose. In the United States, it has attracted great attention because it can be used in various confectionery products and benefits from specific labeling treatment.
Why it's interesting for the low-carb world
Allulose has several interesting aspects: it has a taste closer to sugar than many intense sweeteners; it doesn't have the classic metallic or bitter aftertaste of some alternatives; it can contribute to browning and structure in some products; it has a very low caloric content; it doesn't behave like a normal metabolizable sugar.
The critical point: the European situation
In Europe, however, allulose is not currently authorized as a novel food. In 2025, EFSA evaluated D-allulose as a novel food, but concluded that, based on the available data, safety cannot be established.
This does not automatically mean that allulose is dangerous. However, it means that, at present, there is not enough data for a positive evaluation by the European authority.
Does it really work in baking?
Allulose does not behave like sucrose, glucose, or other fermentable sugars by baker's yeast. In a baked product, therefore, it's not enough to replace sugar with allulose and expect the same dough behavior. A sweetener may have a good taste, but not necessarily provide the same structure, fermentation, volume, or browning as traditional sugar.
Monk fruit: natural doesn't automatically mean authorized
Monk fruit, or luo han guo, comes from the plant Siraitia grosvenorii, native to Asia. Its sweetness is mainly due to mogrosides, compounds with a sweetening power much higher than sugar. In the United States, it is already present in many products, often mixed with erythritol or other bulking agents.
Why it's interesting for low-carb
Monk fruit is interesting because: it has a very high sweetening power; it can be used in very small quantities; it is not a traditional sugar; it can be useful in mixtures with other sweeteners; it has a perceived "more natural" image compared to some synthetic sweeteners.
The situation in Europe is more complex than it seems
In Europe, a distinction must be made between different forms of monk fruit. Some non-selective preparations may have a different classification from purified and concentrated extracts. Purified extracts, i.e., those used as intense sweeteners, fall under a specific regulatory framework and are still under evaluation.
The phrase "monk fruit is natural" is not enough. For a food product sold in Italy, it is necessary to know exactly what type of ingredient is used, what concentration of mogrosides it contains, whether it is a decoction, an extract, or a purified ingredient, what food use is authorized, and in which product category it is placed.
Brazzein: sweet proteins are fascinating, but still far from common European use
Brazzein is a sweet-tasting protein, originally identified in the fruit of the African plant Pentadiplandra brazzeana. It is very interesting because it belongs to the category of so-called "sweet proteins": ingredients that are not sugars but can activate the perception of sweetness. Its sweetening power is very high, so extremely small quantities are needed.
Why it's interesting
Brazzein has some fascinating characteristics: it sweetens at very low dosages; it is not a carbohydrate; it has a potentially clean sensory profile; it can be produced through biotechnological processes; it could have applications in beverages, sweet products, and reduced-sugar foods. In the United States, favorable evaluations already exist for specific brazzein preparations produced by specialized companies.
The practical limit
Brazzein remains a very technical ingredient, still far from common use in European artisanal production. For the low-carb consumer, it is an interesting name to know, but today it is not a concrete and immediately available solution like erythritol, stevia, or other already authorized mixtures. It is a technology to observe, not an ingredient to consider already normal in the low-carb pantry.
5-KDF or "keto-fructose": technological promise, but still scarce on the market
Another emerging ingredient is the so-called 5-KDF, often referred to as "keto-fructose." It is a sweetener developed through biotechnological processes and proposed as a reduced-calorie alternative, with a taste closer to sugar than some intense sweeteners.
Why it's being discussed
The interest arises from some potentially useful characteristics: a rounder sweet profile; reduced caloric intake; good compatibility with various food applications; possible use in beverages, desserts, and functional products; a production approach based on fermentation and technological innovation. However, we are still in a very different phase from that of sweeteners already on the European market.
What it means for the consumer
For the Italian consumer today, 5-KDF is primarily an ingredient to observe. It may become interesting in the future, but it is not yet a common sweetener in low-carb foods available in Europe. The point is not just "how much it promises," but if and when it will be authorized, available, economically sustainable, and truly useful in food products.
Existing sweeteners: more concrete, but not all the same
Alongside emerging sweeteners, there are sweeteners already used for years in the European market. Here the discussion changes: we are no longer talking about futuristic ingredients, but about authorized, evaluated, and regulated ingredients. This does not mean that they are all identical or that they should be used indiscriminately.
Erythritol: useful, but pay attention to quantities
Erythritol is a polyol widely used in sugar-free and low-carb products. It has a very low caloric content, a fairly clean taste, and a reduced glycemic impact compared to sugar. Its main limitation is technological and digestive: it can give a fresh sensation in the mouth that is not always desirable and, if consumed in high quantities, can have gastrointestinal effects. EFSA has re-evaluated erythritol and has set an acceptable daily intake precisely to also protect against laxative effects.
The correct message is: erythritol is a useful, authorized, and very interesting sweetener, but it must be formulated with balance.
Stevia: intense, plant-based, but needs careful balancing
Steviol glycosides, commonly associated with stevia, are intense sweeteners authorized in the European Union. They have a sweetening power much higher than sugar and do not contribute significant carbohydrates at usage levels. Their main limitation is sensory: depending on the quality of the extract, the composition, and the dosage, they can leave bitter, herbal, or persistent aftertastes. For this reason, stevia often works better in mixtures with other sweeteners or bulking agents.
Sucralose: authorized, but caution with high-temperature uses
Sucralose is an intense sweetener, widely used in food products and beverages. It is authorized in the European Union, and EFSA has completed its re-evaluation. However, the most delicate issue concerns some high-temperature applications: EFSA has highlighted uncertainties related to the use of sucralose in specific baking applications or under prolonged heating conditions. This does not mean that sucralose should be "avoided" entirely, but that the choice of sweetener must also consider technological stability and actual usage conditions.
Acesulfame K, saccharin, and neotame: intense sweeteners to be used judiciously
Acesulfame K, saccharin, and neotame are intense sweeteners authorized and re-evaluated by European authorities. They have a high sweetening power and are used in very small quantities. They do not behave like sugar: they do not provide bulk, they do not provide structure, and they do not perform the same technological functions as sucrose. However, they can be useful in some formulations, especially when the goal is to achieve sweetness without significantly increasing sugars and carbohydrates.
The choice should not be ideological. It should be formulative. A good low-carb product is not born from the automatic rejection of an ingredient, but from the ability to use it judiciously, in the right dose, and in the right context. Regulations dictate what can be used. Formulation decides how to use it. Positioning decides how to communicate it transparently.
The real question: which sweetener is actually needed?
When choosing a low-carb sweetener, a common mistake must be avoided: searching for "the best" one absolutely. There is no perfect sweetener for everything. A sweetener may work well in a beverage and poorly in a biscuit. It may be valid in a cold cream and unsuitable for a leavened product. It may have a good glycemic profile but a difficult aftertaste to manage. Or it may be excellent in terms of sensory properties, but not yet authorized in Europe.
The choice depends on many factors: desired taste; type of product; processing temperature; presence of fiber, protein, or fats; final consistency; dose used; applicable regulations; digestive tolerability; consistency with brand positioning.
Natural doesn't automatically mean better
Another important point concerns the word "natural." Many consumers look for natural sweeteners because they perceive them as safer or healthier. But this association is not always correct. A natural ingredient may not be authorized in a certain form. It may have a strong aftertaste. It may be difficult to dose. It may not work in baking. It may require very complex extraction and purification processes. At the same time, a sweetener that is less "romantic" from a communicative point of view can be more studied, more stable, and more predictable.
The quality of a low-carb product does not depend on a word on the label. It depends on the overall balance of the formulation.
What all this means for those following a low-carb diet
For those who want to reduce sugars and carbohydrates, sweeteners can be useful tools. But they should not become a mental shortcut. A well-made low-carb product should not just replace sugar with another sweet ingredient. It should be conceived as a whole: taste, texture, satiety, ingredients, nutritional values, and eating pleasure. This applies to a sweet dish, but also to bread, pizza, pasta, focaccia, and baked goods.
Reducing carbohydrates is only part of the job. The other part is building a food that works.
Conclusion: innovation yes, but with discretion
The world of low-carb sweeteners is rapidly evolving. Allulose, monk fruit, brazzein, and 5-KDF are interesting ingredients to observe. Some are already used in other markets, others are still under evaluation, and others may play a role in the coming years.
But for those who buy or produce food in Italy, the point remains very concrete: not everything that is promising is already authorized. Not everything that is natural is automatically suitable. Not everything that sweetens well also works in baking or in an artisanal formulation.
For this reason, the best choice is to look at sweeteners with curiosity, but also with caution. In low-carb, there's no need to chase every novelty. It's about choosing sensible, consistent, and well-formulated ingredients.
This is the difference between a product that is simply "sugar-free" and a truly well-thought-out low-carb product.