Qualitative Consumer Research: Sugar Claims & Sweetener Perception Under the FDA’s 2026 Policy Shift
Sugar is back on the regulatory agenda, and brands are already adjusting labels, sweeteners, and “less sugar” messaging. But policy moves faster than perception. This qualitative consumer research explores what shoppers actually hear when brands talk about sugar, and where sugar claims trigger trust, doubt, or immediate label-flipping.
Qualitative Research Methodology
We used modern qualitative research methods to simulate in-depth interviews with 10 U.S. consumers aged 20–40, all primary grocery decision-makers, including parents, price-sensitive shoppers, and a small formulation-literate and design-aware subset.
The study tested real-world claim language and sweetener cues, including:
-
•
“No added sugar”
-
•
“Reformulated with less sugar”
-
•
“Sweet Without Compromise”
-
•
“Naturally sweetened with dates”
-
•
“Lightly sweetened”
-
•
Sweetener reactions across cane sugar, allulose, stevia, monk fruit, and erythritol
Key Finding: Transparency Beats Halos
Across the sample, consumers treated front-of-pack sugar claims as marketing prompts, not proof. The default behavior was to flip the package and verify ingredients, grams of sugar, and what was “swapped in.”
What Consumers Think “No Added Sugar” Really Means
When shoppers see “no added sugar,” they typically assume one of three things:
-
•
The sweetness is coming from fruit concentrates or dates
-
•
The product uses non-nutritive sweeteners (stevia, monk fruit, allulose, sugar alcohols)
-
•
The brand compensated with thickeners/gums/salt/fiber to restore mouthfeel
Net: “No added sugar” rarely creates a “health halo” on its own. It triggers verification.
“Reformulated With Less Sugar” Reads Like a Downgrade Alert
“Reformulated” messaging consistently raised suspicion about:
-
•
Taste and texture getting worse
-
•
Aftertaste from sweetener swaps
-
•
Shrinkflation or value loss (same price, less satisfaction)
Consumers said they might try one test unit, but many expected disappointment unless the change was invisible in taste and texture.
Dessert Head-to-Head: Cane Sugar Beat Allulose 10/10
In a simple dessert comparison, 10 out of 10 chose cane sugar over allulose. Reasons were practical and sensory:
-
•
Predictable taste and texture
-
•
Better browning and “real dessert” mouthfeel
-
•
Lower perceived digestive risk
-
•
Better value, fewer “diet vibes”
Important nuance: a minority were open to allulose in frozen formats, where it can help texture and scoopability, but the acceptance was narrow and conditional.
Sweetener Perception: The Shortcut Associations Brands Trigger
Participants had highly consistent mental models for common alternative sweeteners:
-
•
Stevia: bitter or metallic “tail”
-
•
Erythritol: cooling or minty effect, sometimes gritty, often tied to digestive discomfort
-
•
Monk fruit: perceived as “wellness branding,” often assumed to be blended with something else
Claim Language That Backfires
-
•
“Sweet Without Compromise” was widely decoded as a euphemism for sweetener swaps and formulation tricks.
-
•
“We listened. We reduced the sugar.” landed slightly better, but still raised: “OK, what did you change and by how much?”
“Naturally Sweetened With Dates” Still Equals Sugar in Consumers’ Minds
“Dates” carried a halo, but it did not eliminate skepticism. Consumers expected a dark, sticky caramel or raisin-like sweetness and still wanted to verify:
-
•
paste vs syrup
-
•
total sugar per serving
-
•
whether “dates” meant “sweetness in another hat”
Strategic Implications for Brands and Commodity Boards
Based on this qualitative consumer research, here’s what improves trust and trial intent:
1) Lead with numbers
State the exact grams reduced per serving and avoid vague wellness language.
2) Name the sweetener, and what you avoided
If you used alternatives, say which ones. If you did not, say that too (for example: “no sugar alcohols”).
3) Fit-by-format wins
Cane sugar is strongly preferred for indulgent formats. If alternatives are used, justify them where they functionally win (notably frozen, in this sample).
4) Protect mouthfeel without “mystery bumps”
Unexplained jumps in gums, fiber additives, sodium, or serving-size manipulation reduce trust fast.
5) Avoid shrinkflation signals
Value math is part of the trust test, especially for price-sensitive shoppers and parents.
This research is designed for:
-
•
Commodity boards navigating sugar scrutiny and claim strategy
-
•
Food brands considering reformulation, reduced-sugar line extensions, or sweetener swaps
-
•
Marketing and comms teams trying to avoid backlash while staying ahead of policy shifts
Need to pressure-test sugar claims, reformulation language, or sweetener strategy before it goes public? Book a Ditto demo to see how synthetic qualitative research can help you move faster without guessing.