Bitter sweet dilemma

Upgrade to High-Speed Internet for only ₱1499/month!

Enjoy up to 100 Mbps fiber broadband, perfect for browsing, streaming, and gaming.

Visit Suniway.ph to learn

The Department of Agriculture is considering an increase in tariffs on imported artificial sweeteners and sugar substitutes to curb importation of the product, following reports that import volumes have risen to levels that have affected local sugar producers.

According to Agriculture Secretary Francisco Tiu Laurel Jr., importation of artificial sweeteners last year rose by 200,000 metric tons in raw sugar equivalent, an increase he described as significant.

Last year, the US Department of Agriculture Foreign Agricultural Service in Manila said in a report that the country’s consumption of sugar alternatives will increase by 47 percent, or half of the projected 2.2 million metric tons raw sugar consumption. These alternatives include aspartame, acesulfame, sucralose, saccharin and stevia.

Stevia is a natural, zero-calorie, plant-based sugar substitute while aspartame, acesulfame potassium, sucralose and saccharin are artificial sweeteners that are said to be 200 to 700 times sweeter than sugar.

 The agency forecasts that consumption of alternative sweeteners converted into raw sugar equivalent will reach 1.14 million metric tons last year compared to the 774,000 metric ton consumption in 2024.

It said that the consumption of sugar alternatives has been increasing over the past years, with the double-digit growth causing alarm among local sugar producers.

Various groups in the sugar industry blame artificial sweeteners and sugar alternatives for the decline in sugar demand and drop in prices.

They also claimed that the importation of artificial sweeteners has been unregulated, resulting in a surge in imports in recent years and in lower demand for locally produced sugar since these sugar substitutes are cheaper.

At present, tariffs on artificial sweeteners are at five percent. Tiu Laurel said that the DA and the Sugar Regulatory Administration have decided to pursue tariff increase calculations with Finance Secretary Frederick Go who expressed consent to the planned action.

 According to a report by Statista, the increasing demand for sugar substitutes is largely influenced by the growing prevalence of diabetes and obesity in the Philippines, as well as a general shift toward healthier lifestyles. 

Meanwhile, another report from Mobility Foresights noted that the Philippine sugar substitutes and natural sweeteners market is experiencing rapid growth due to rising health consciousness and increasing cases of obesity and diabetes.

It said that natural sweeteners such as stevia, monk fruit and allulose are gaining preference in the country as consumers shift away from artificial sweeteners.

The report also noted that growing demand from the food and beverage sector in the Philippines, especially in soft drinks, bakery and dairy products, is driving adoption while expanding e-commerce and retail distribution networks in the country are making sugar substitutes more accessible to consumers.

It explained that food and beverage manufacturers are reformulating products with sugar substitutes to meet consumer demand for healthier options.

Meanwhile, sugar substitutes are increasingly being used in nutraceuticals, dietary supplements and functional foods in the Philippines as products targeting weight management, sports nutrition, and immunity are incorporating natural sweeteners as a healthier alternative to sugar. And this demand, the report added, is being driven by health-conscious millennials and aging populations alike.

The shift to sugar alternatives among health-conscious Filipinos is not surprising at all.

According to the Philippine Statistics Authority, diabetes mellitus is among the top causes of death in the country from January to April 2025, joining ischemic heart disease, neoplasms, cerebrovascular diseases and pneumonia. Diabetes mellitus ranked fifth with 12,360 deaths or a 6.1 percent share.

Meanwhile, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) revealed that in the Philippines, the number of overweight children has almost tripled since 2003, increasing the risks of problems like diabetes.

Then, there are these popular diets, like the ketogenic diet, a high-fat, very low-carbohydrate nutritional pattern which advocate the use of low-carb sweeteners like stevia, erythritol or monk fruit.

The glycemic index (GI) is value used to measure how much specific foods increase blood sugar levels. Foods are classified as low (55 or less GI), medium (56-69) or high-glycemic (70 or above) foods and ranked on a scale of 0-100. The lower the GI, the less it may affect blood sugar levels. Consuming too much sugar can disrupt the metabolic state of ketosis as table sugar is a simple carbohydrate known as sucrose.

White sugar or table sugar or sucrose has a GI value of 65 while stevia, acesulfame potassium, sucralose, aspartame, erythritol and saccharin have zero. Other natural sweeteners have the following GI values: honey (58), fructose (23), maltose (105), molasses (55), maple syrup (54), coconut sugar (54), high fructose corn syrup (62-68), agave nectar (15-30), palm sugar (35), mannitol (2), xylitol (7-13), to name a few. These sugar substitutes can be as much as 700 times sweeter than cane sugar, but zero calorie and for some, zero GI.

For food and beverage manufacturers, the growing shift to sugar alternatives is due to a number of factors, including the lower price of some artificial sweeteners (a number of natural sweeteners like stevia cost higher than refined sugar), purchasing behavior as more Filipinos are now checking nutrition facts in search of “healthier” food products, and the relatively stable price of these sweeteners compared to the volatile price of refined sugar, among others.

The ideal market for Filipino consumers is one where sugar and its substitutes co-exist, where options are accessible, and prices remain reasonable. While we commiserate with the plight of our sugar farmers, there are other ways to address their problems without impinging on the consumer’s right to health and freedom of choice. Some of these include finding new markets and uses for cane sugar and helping bring down production cost of raw and refined sugar.

 Forcing food and beverage manufacturers to use domestic refined cane sugar by increasing tariffs on sugar alternatives can also have inflationary effects, as higher cost of inputs would lead to higher prices of their products, not to mention impact their competitiveness especially in the foreign markets. 

Sweetened beverages with added sugar are already covered by the sugar sweetened beverage excise tax but sugar is not subject to the said tax. Increasing tariffs on sugar alternatives will be too much punishment.

 For comments, email at [email protected]