The Concept: Sugar-free candy

Sugar-free candy represents a growing category within the confectionery industry, driven by increasing consumer demand for reduced sugar products. These products are specifically formulated to provide a sweet taste while meeting consumers’ desire to reduce their sugar intake.

The primary appeal of sugar-free candy lies in the benefits it can provide, such as lower calorie content, lower impact on blood sugar levels, and improved oral health compared to traditional sugary sweets. This makes them a popular choice for individuals managing their weight, people with diabetes, or anyone looking to reduce their risk of tooth decay. The sweetness in these products is typically achieved through the innovative use of various sugar substitutes, including artificial sweeteners and sugar alcohols.

However, it is crucial to understand that the labelling “sugar free” on a product does not automatically mean that it is calorie free or carbohydrate free. This nuance is particularly relevant due to the common presence of sugar alcohols, which contain both calories and carbohydrates. This highlights the complexity of their nutritional profile and the importance of detailed labelling and reading. The consumer perception of “sugar free” is often too simplistic, equating it with “calorie free” or “carb free”. It is essential to address this misconception head on, as it forms the basis for an accurate understanding of the nutritional reality of these products. This means that in addition to complying with legal requirements, there is also a broader need for consumer education to ensure correct interpretation of product information.

Furthermore, the use of claims such as “sugar-free” on food packaging is not arbitrary, but strictly regulated by European legislation. Products must meet specific, legally defined thresholds and claims may only be used if they are on an approved list of claims. This emphasises the strict legal and technical precision required of manufacturers operating in this segment.

Sugar Free Candy Composition: Sweeteners and More

Sugar-free candy derives its sweetness from a wide variety of sugar substitutes, which are generally grouped into three main categories: artificial sweeteners, sugar alcohols (polyols), and novel sweeteners. These substitutes are chosen because they provide a sweet taste with significantly fewer calories than conventional sugar, with some having virtually no calories.

Artificial sweeteners

These compounds are primarily synthesized in laboratories, although some may be derived from natural substances. They are characterized by their extreme sweetness, often 200 to 700 times sweeter than sucrose (table sugar). As a result, they are used in very small quantities and typically contribute negligible or no calories.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved several artificial sweeteners for use in food, including Acesulfame potassium (Ace-K), Advantame, Aspartame, Neotame, Saccharin, and Sucralose.

The diverse heat stability profiles and varying aftertaste characteristics of artificial sweeteners pose significant challenges for product developers.

For example, aspartame is not heat stable and decomposes at high temperatures, making it unsuitable for baked goods. In contrast, acesulfame potassium and saccharin are heat stable but can have a slightly bitter or metallic aftertaste, especially at higher concentrations. For these reasons, strategic blending of multiple sweeteners is often necessary.

For example, by combining Acesulfame Potassium with Aspartame or Sucralose, a more sugary taste can be achieved, with the sweeteners masking each other's aftertaste and exhibiting a synergistic effect that makes the blend sweeter than either component alone. This illustrates that creating a "sugary" experience in sugar-free candy is a complex chemical and sensory conundrum that goes beyond a simple one-to-one sugar substitution.

* Acesulfame potassium (Ace-K) : This sweetener is approximately 200 times sweeter than sucrose and exhibits excellent heat stability, making it suitable for baked goods and products with a long shelf life. However, it can have a slightly bitter aftertaste, especially at higher concentrations.

* Aspartame: Also about 200 times sweeter than sucrose, aspartame is widely used but is not heat stable, meaning it breaks down before it melts. This instability limits its use in high-temperature processing, such as baking. It can also be associated with bitter or off-flavors. Despite being one of the most widely used sweeteners, it has also been the subject of controversy regarding its safety.

* Saccharin : Ranging from 200 to 700 times sweeter than sucrose, saccharin is heat stable. Like Ace-K, it can leave a bitter or metallic aftertaste. While it was once the subject of cancer concerns, subsequent studies have largely allayed these fears, with regulators concluding that the mechanism observed in rats is not relevant to humans.

* Sucralose: Derived from sucrose by chlorination, sucralose is approximately 600 times sweeter than sugar. It is heat stable up to 125°C, making it versatile for a variety of applications. There are few safety concerns associated with sucralose, as only about 15% is absorbed by the body, with most excreted unchanged.

Sugar Alcohols (Polyols)

Also known as polyols, these compounds function as both sweeteners and bulking agents. They are found naturally in a variety of plant products, including fruits and berries. Compared to regular sugar, sugar alcohols provide fewer calories (typically about half to one-third fewer, averaging about 2.6 kcal/g) and are metabolized more slowly, resulting in less impact on blood sugar levels. They are not completely metabolized by the human body. Common sugar alcohols used in sugar-free confectionery include Erythritol, Isomalt, Lactitol, Maltitol, Mannitol, Sorbitol, and Xylitol.

While sugar alcohols are valuable for providing sweetness and volume with fewer calories and a lower glycemic impact, their incomplete absorption in the human digestive system is a direct cause of common gastrointestinal side effects such as bloating and diarrhea, especially at higher consumption levels. This creates an important trade-off for both consumers and formulators: the benefits must be balanced against the potential for digestive discomfort.
This influences the recommended serving sizes and the specific choice of polyols (for example, the generally better tolerability of erythritol compared to the higher laxative effect of mannitol).

* Erythritol : Approximately 70% sweeter than sugar, erythritol is notable for its very low caloric content (0.2 kcal/g) and minimal effect on blood sugar levels, as it is easily absorbed by the body. Many find the taste to be cleaner and less artificial compared to other sugar alcohols. It is also non-cariogenic, meaning it does not contribute to tooth decay.

* Isomalt : With a sweetness level of 45-65% relative to sugar, isomalt is very stable when heated and absorbs very little water. These properties make it a preferred choice for hard candy, toffee and lollipops, where structural integrity and resistance to stickiness are important.

* Lactitol : Provides about 30-40% of the sweetness of sugar, but the flavor and solubility profile of lactitol is very similar to sugar. It is often used in sugar-free ice cream, chocolate, hard and soft candies, and baked goods.

* Maltitol : This polyol is about 75% sweeter than sugar and gives a creamy texture to foods. It is widely used in sugar-free hard candies, chewing gum, chocolate-flavored desserts, baked goods, and ice cream because it gives a creamy texture to foods.

* Mannitol : Naturally found in pineapples and olives, and extracted from seaweed for commercial use, mannitol is 50-70% sweeter than sugar. Due to its slow absorption and tendency to remain in the intestines for a long time, it can often cause bloating and diarrhea when consumed in large quantities.

* Sorbitol : Naturally found in fruits and vegetables and produced from corn syrup, sorbitol is about 50% sweeter than sugar. It is a common ingredient in sugar-free gum and candy. It generally causes less diarrhea compared to mannitol.

* Xylitol : Also known as "wood sugar", xylitol has the same sweetness intensity as sucrose (100%). It occurs naturally in various plant materials such as straw, corn cobs, and certain fruits and vegetables. Xylitol is often used in chewing gum for its sweetness and significant dental benefits.

New and natural sweeteners

These sweeteners are generally less processed and more closely resemble their natural origins than their artificial counterparts. Key examples include Allulose, Monk Fruit, and Stevia.

The divergent regulatory status of new sweeteners such as Allulose (approved in the US, not yet in the EU) and Monk Fruit (approved as a flavouring but not as a sweetener in the EU) indicates significant international divergence in the approval of food additives. This means that a product formulated for one market may not be regulatory compliant in another. This has direct implications for global food manufacturers, who must adopt different formulations and regulatory strategies for different markets. This divergence can create competitive advantages or barriers, and affects innovation, supply chain decisions and market entry strategies for companies operating internationally.

* Allulose : Classified as a rare sugar, allulose is approximately 70% sweeter than sucrose and has a very low caloric value (0.4 kcal/g). Structurally similar to fructose, it is unique in that it is not significantly metabolized as a sugar in the body. The FDA recognizes that allulose does not act like a sugar and, as of 2019, no longer requires it to be listed with sugars on U.S. nutrition labels. It can also contribute to browning in food products. Notably, allulose, according to the information provided, is not yet authorized as a food ingredient in the European Union.

* Monk Fruit (Mogrosides): Derived from the monk fruit, this natural sweetener is intensely sweet (250-400 times sweeter than sugar) with virtually no calories and a mild, subtle sweetness. It is naturally derived from plants and is generally regarded as safe (GRAS) by the FDA. However, as of 2017, mogrosides are not allowed as a sweetener in the European Union, although they are allowed as a flavoring agent in concentrations that do not have a sweetening function.

* Stevia (Steviol Glycosides): This plant-based sweetener is derived from the Stevia rebaudiana plant and offers intense sweetness (200-400 times sweeter than sugar) with minimal calories and a generally clean taste. It is also Generally Regarded as Safe by the FDA. Stevia is heat stable up to 400°F (205°C), but some forms may exhibit solubility issues or a bitter/licorice aftertaste. It is important to note that the FDA has issued an import alert for raw stevia leaves and extracts that do not have GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) status, citing safety concerns and potential for toxicity.

Overview of commonly used sweeteners in sugar-free candy

In addition to providing sweetness, sugar in traditional confectionery serves a variety of functions, including contributing to volume, texture, moisture retention, and even browning. When sugar is removed, these functional properties must be mimicked by other ingredients to ensure that the sugar-free product retains the desired sensory qualities and structural integrity. The development of sugar-free confectionery therefore goes beyond simply replacing the sweetness of sugar; it is crucial to also replicate its complex structural and textural functions.

* Fillers:
These ingredients are essential to mimic the volume and structural characteristics of sugar, especially in low-calorie formulations where high-calorie ingredients are reduced or removed. They contribute to volume without significantly increasing the caloric content, improve texture and mouthfeel (for example by creating a smooth, creamy consistency or improving viscosity), provide the necessary structure and stability, and can even increase satiety, helping consumers feel fuller for longer.

Common fillers include various polyols (sugar alcohols such as Sorbitol, Maltitol, Erythritol, Xylitol), dietary fiber (such as Cellulose, Soluble Corn Fiber, Polydextrose, Inulin, Oat Fiber, Psyllium Husk, Wheat Fiber, Bamboo Fiber, and Pea Fiber), and Maltodextrins. Some fillers, particularly sugar alcohols and oligosaccharides, also have the added benefit of acting as dietary fiber.

* Thickening and Gelling Agents (Hydrocolloids):
These are crucial for controlling the texture, viscosity and overall stability of sugar-free confectionery. Hydrocolloids disperse in water to create a thickening effect and are essential for inhibiting crystallization of sugar and ice.
Commonly used examples include starch, xanthan gum, guar gum, locust bean gum, gum arabic and various cellulose derivatives. For jelly formulations, specific gelling agents such as gelatin, pectin, agar, starch, carrageenan and gellan gum are used to stabilise the product.

Functional properties

* Thickening:
Achieved by the nonspecific entanglement of conformationally disordered polymer chains in solution.

* Gel formation:
The ability to solidify liquid products, forming gels with a range of textures, from soft and elastic to firm and brittle. For example, gelatin forms stable three-dimensional gels, while carrageenan forms spiral gels.

* Emulsification & Stabilization: Critical to preventing separation in emulsions, especially in low-fat systems.

* Moisture control:
Helps retain moisture, which contributes to the desired mouthfeel and prevents dryness.

* Crystallization inhibition: Prevents the formation of unwanted sugar or ice crystals, thus maintaining the smoothness and appearance of the product.

* Mouthfeel & Opacity: Significantly influence the sensory characteristics of the product, including perceived richness and clarity.

* Formulation challenges:
Proper dissolution and hydration of gelling agents are paramount to achieving the desired final product quality. In addition, sugar-free pectin gummies, for example, have a greater tendency to crystallize during shelf life, which requires careful monitoring during product development and stability testing.

The absence of sugar requires a complex array of other ingredients to maintain the integrity and appeal of the product. This highlights that product development is a multifaceted endeavor. It is a holistic formulation effort, where the choice of sweetener often determines the specific combination of other functional ingredients needed to achieve a similar sensory experience and product stability.

Regulations: When is Candy 'Sugar Free' in the EU and the Netherlands?

The use of nutrition and health claims on food products within the European Union is governed by strict European legislation. This regulatory framework ensures that claims on food labels are scientifically substantiated and do not mislead consumers.
Manufacturers may only use a claim if it is explicitly stated on the European list of approved claims and the food product strictly complies with the specific requirements associated with that claim.
In the Netherlands, the Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority (NVWA) is the designated authority responsible for monitoring and enforcing these claims. In order to strengthen the credibility of approved claims and to protect consumers, products with unapproved claims had to be withdrawn from the market after December 2012.

The presence of multiple, distinct, but superficially similar, sugar-related claims (‘sugar-free’, ‘low sugar’, ‘no added sugar’, ‘reduced sugar’, ‘light’) creates significant potential for consumer confusion. Although each term is precisely defined in law with specific thresholds, consumers may not fully understand these nuances. This can lead to misinterpretations about the true nutritional profile of a product (e.g. assuming ‘no added sugar’ means low total sugar content, which may not be true if high natural sugars are present). This implies that, despite strict regulation, there remains a practical challenge in ensuring clear consumer understanding. This may necessitate further public health campaigns or clearer communication from industry, going beyond mere compliance with the law.

Definition of 'Sugar Free'

For a food product, including sweets, to legitimately bear the claim “sugar free,” it must contain a very low level of total sugars. Specifically, the sugar content of the product must not exceed 0.5 grams of sugar per 100 grams for solid products or per 100 milliliters for liquid products. This strict threshold ensures that the claim accurately reflects the composition of the product.

Related Nutritional Claims

In addition to “sugar-free”, European legislation defines several other sugar-related nutritional claims, each with its own precise criteria:

* 'Low Sugars ': This claim may be made if the product contains no more than 5 grams of sugar per 100 grams for solids or 2.5 grams per 100 millilitres for liquids.

* ' With No Added Sugars ': This claim means that no mono- or disaccharides (simple sugars) or other food ingredients used for their sweetening properties have been added to the product. If sugars are naturally present in the food (for example from fruit), the label must include the additional statement: "CONTAINS NATURALLY OCCURRING SUGARS".

* ' Reduced Sugars ': To qualify for this claim, the product must demonstrate a reduction of at least 30% in sugar content compared to a comparable, conventional product. In addition, the energy content of the reduced sugar product must be equal to or lower than that of the comparable product.

* ' Light/Lite ': The "light" or "lite" claim meets the same requirements as "reduced" claims. This usually means a minimum reduction of 30% in energy, fat or sugars compared to a comparable product. Crucially, the claim must be accompanied by a clear statement on the label indicating which property (e.g. energy, fat or sugars) makes the food "light".

Labeling Requirements and Supervision

For pre-packaged foods sold in the Netherlands, all mandatory information on the label must be in Dutch. This information must also be easy to read and find for the consumer. It is strictly forbidden to place information on the label that could mislead the consumer. In order to improve transparency and accessibility, all mandatory labelling information for pre-packaged foods is also available online. The NVWA plays a crucial role in monitoring and enforcing these labelling rules in the Netherlands.

Table EU Regulation for sugar related nutritional claims
Nutritional Claim | Legal Threshold (per 100g/100ml) | Additional Conditions/Notes

Sugar free | Max 0.5g sugar | Applies to solids and liquids |

Low in sugar | Max 5g sugar (solid) / 2.5g sugar (liquid) | Applies to solids and liquids |

No added sugars | No added mono- or disaccharides or sweeteners | If sugars are naturally present, state: 'Contains naturally occurring sugars' |

Reduced sugar content | Min 30% reduction compared to comparable product | Energy content of the product must be equal to or lower than that of the comparable product |

Light/Lite | Min 30% reduction compared to comparable product (energy, fat or sugars) | Clear indication on label which property makes it 'light' |

Nutritional and Health Aspects of Sugar Free Candy

Caloric Value and Blood Sugar Impact
Sugar-free candy is typically lower in calories than its sugary counterparts, making it an attractive option for calorie reduction. However, it is important to note that these products are often not calorie-free. For example, a sugar-free Oreo contains 50 calories, only slightly less than the 54 calories of a regular Oreo. However, some products, such as hard candy, can have a more significant calorie reduction (e.g., from 112 calories to 12 calories per small piece).

Artificial and novel sweeteners generally contribute minimal to no calories. However, sugar alcohols do contain carbohydrates and provide calories, typically around 2.6 kcal/g. The “sugar-free” claim, while legally correct in terms of sugar content, often creates the misconception that the product is also “calorie-free” or “fat-free.” However, this is often not the case, especially since sugar alcohols contribute calories and other ingredients, such as cocoa butter in chocolate, can add significant fat. This means that consumers, and even some professionals, need to look beyond the prominent “sugar-free” claim and scrutinize the entire nutrition label to understand the full calorie, carbohydrate, and fat profile of the product. This is essential for accurate diet planning and avoiding unintended nutritional overkill.

A significant benefit of sugar-free candy is its generally lower impact on blood sugar levels, making it a more suitable choice for people with diabetes. Sugar alcohols are digested differently and absorbed more slowly than regular sugar, resulting in a reduced impact on blood glucose. For carbohydrate counting, it is often advised to subtract half the grams of sugar alcohol from the total carbohydrates listed on the label. It is important to emphasize that “sugar-free” does not equal “fat-free.” Some sugar-free products, particularly chocolate, can still be high in saturated fat due to other ingredients such as cocoa butter.

Potential side effects

* Digestive upset : One of the most commonly reported side effects of sugar-free sweets, especially those containing sugar alcohols, is gastrointestinal discomfort. Unabsorbed sugar alcohols can lead to bloating and diarrhea, especially in large doses, due to their osmotic effect. This is a notable concern for individuals with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).

* Appetite stimulation: Some research suggests that certain non-calorie sweeteners may paradoxically stimulate appetite, potentially leading to increased total calorie intake. This effect, if confirmed, could be counterproductive for individuals seeking weight control.

* Taste Issues : Despite advances in sweetener technology, some sugar-free products may still have an “off-flavor” or undesirable aftertaste, which can lead to consumer dissatisfaction and a preference for sugary alternatives.

* Long-Term Health Effects : While individual sugar substitutes are generally considered safe by regulatory agencies (e.g., FDA, EFSA) for specific uses and within established intake levels, the overall long-term impact of widespread consumption of sugar-free products, particularly with regard to weight management, appetite regulation, and broader metabolic health, remains a subject of ongoing scientific debate and inconclusive evidence.
The explicit recommendation by the World Health Organization (WHO) against the use of non-nutritive sweeteners for weight control adds considerable complexity to the perceived “healthier” status of sugar-free products. This implies that regulatory approval for safety does not automatically equate to a general recommendation for broad health benefits, beyond specific contexts (e.g. blood sugar control for diabetics).

It is therefore important to have a balanced, nuanced discussion that recognizes both regulatory safety and ongoing scientific uncertainty, especially for broader health goals such as weight management.

* Body Weight and Obesity:
Reviews of the association between nonnutritive sweeteners and body weight are inconsistent. Although observational studies sometimes show a correlation with increased body weight, randomized controlled trials often indicate little to no causal effect on weight loss. Some preliminary studies have linked consumption of artificial sweeteners to obesity, metabolic syndrome, reduced satiety, and impaired glucose metabolism, although the numerous factors that influence obesity make definitive conclusions difficult. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends against the use of nonnutritive sweeteners for weight management.

* Cancer:
Several comprehensive reviews have found no association between artificial sweeteners and increased cancer risk. Regulatory agencies such as the FDA and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) consider approved sweeteners generally safe for the general population under typical intake conditions. Initial concerns, particularly about saccharin and cyclamate causing bladder cancer in lab rats, were later largely considered irrelevant to humans due to significant species differences in metabolism or the extremely high doses used in studies.

* Mortality:
Meta-analyses have shown that high consumption of artificially sweetened beverages is associated with a higher risk of total mortality and cardiovascular mortality. Interestingly, similar or even larger increases in mortality risk have been observed with consumption of similar amounts of sugary beverages.

* Diabetes Mellitus:
Although artificial sweeteners do not directly raise blood glucose levels, there is concern that the increased appeal of foods and beverages containing sugar substitutes may lead to overconsumption, potentially increasing the risk of developing diabetes.
Evaluations of this relationship remain unclear, although some studies suggest an increased risk of type 2 diabetes with daily consumption of artificially sweetened beverages.

* FDA Import Warning (Stevia):
It is noteworthy that the FDA has issued an import warning for raw stevia leaves and extracts, as well as foods containing them, which do not have GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) status. This action was taken due to safety concerns and potential for toxicity.

Benefits for dental health

One of the most recognized benefits of sugar-free candy and gum is the reduced risk to oral health compared to their sugary counterparts.
This benefit comes from the fact that sugar alcohols, which are often used in these products, cannot be metabolized by oral bacteria in the same way as sucrose. As a result, they contribute significantly less to the production of acids that cause tooth decay.

The dental benefits of sugar-free products are not merely a passive consequence of the absence of sugar, but are actively linked to the specific metabolic properties of sugar alcohols. These polyols are not easily fermented by oral bacteria, thus reducing acid production and subsequent demineralisation of teeth. Furthermore, the EU authorisation of specific qualified health claims related to oral health emphasises the scientific recognition of these benefits.

It also highlights that such claims are often tied to precise compositional and functional criteria (e.g. type of polyol, pH impact of the product). This goes beyond a general statement of “better for teeth” and explains the underlying biochemical mechanism, as well as its translation into regulated health claims. The European Union regulatory framework explicitly allows for specific, qualified health claims related to oral health for products containing sugar alternatives.

Examples include “Consumption of foods/beverages containing [sugar alternative] instead of sugar contributes to the maintenance of tooth mineralization” and “Sugar-free chewing gum helps to reduce tooth demineralization”. These claims are often subject to specific conditions, such as ensuring that the product does not lower the pH of plaque below 5.7 during and up to 30 minutes after consumption.

Conclusion and recommendations

Sugar-free candy represents an advanced category within confectionery, characterized by the use of a diverse palette of sweeteners – including artificial compounds, sugar alcohols and novel natural extracts – and a complex array of functional ingredients such as bulking, thickening and gelling agents. These components are carefully combined to not only provide sweetness, but also to mimic the crucial sensory and structural properties that sugar provides in traditional confectionery.

The term “sugar-free” is subject to a rigorous definition under EU regulations, which specifically prescribe a maximum of 0.5 grams of total sugars per 100 grams or 100 milliliters of product. This strict legal threshold is complemented by a range of other sugar-related claims, each with its own precise criteria, which, despite their legal clarity, can sometimes lead to consumer confusion.

While sugar-free products offer tangible benefits, including reduced calorie intake, lower impact on blood sugar levels, and significant oral health benefits, their consumption is not without considerations.
Potential downsides include digestive discomfort from excessive intake of sugar alcohols and an ongoing scientific debate about the long-term metabolic effects of non-nutritive sweeteners, highlighting a nuanced health profile.

Practical considerations for sugar-free products

Accurate label reading:
Always study the ingredients list thoroughly to identify the sweeteners used, as well as the presence of artificial colors, flavors, and preservatives. Understand that the claim “sugar-free” does not automatically imply that the product is calorie-free or fat-free; therefore, always check the total calories, carbohydrates, and fat content on the nutrition label.

Knowledge of Sweeteners:
Become familiar with the different categories of sweeteners (e.g., sugar alcohols vs. artificial sweeteners) and their potential individual characteristics, such as digestive side effects associated with sugar alcohols, especially if there is a sensitivity to them.

Moderation:
Even sugar-free sweets, while they do offer some benefits, are not “free” foods and should be consumed in moderation as part of a balanced diet. They still contribute to total caloric intake and, in some cases, carbohydrates.

Personal Preference:
Experiment with different brands and products containing different sweetener combinations to discover preferred flavor profiles and textures that suit individual preferences and tolerance

Disclaimer

This article is for information purposes only. Although very careful research has been done, we always refer you to a medical professional and/or a dietician for medical advice or a (medical) diagnosis.