Almost every coconut sugar supplier’s website states that coconut sugar has a glycemic index of 35. Very few mention that an independent laboratory measured it at 54.

If you are formulating a product, writing a label, or signing off marketing copy, that gap is your problem rather than your supplier’s. This article sets out what the published data actually says, why the two figures differ, and how to make claims you can defend.

The two numbers

The GI 35 figure originates with the Philippine Coconut Authority, whose testing placed coconut sugar in the low-GI category. This is the number reproduced across essentially the entire coconut sugar industry.

The University of Sydney, which maintains one of the most widely referenced glycemic index databases in the world, measured coconut sugar at 54.

Under the standard classification – low is 55 or below, medium is 56 to 69, high is 70 and above – 54 still technically sits inside the low band. But it sits at the very top of it, one point from the boundary. That is a materially different product story from 35, and it is close enough to the cut-off that a differently sourced batch could plausibly land on the wrong side.

For context, table sugar measures around 65.

Why the two results disagree

Neither figure is necessarily wrong. GI testing has genuine sources of variation, and coconut sugar has more of them than most ingredients.

• The product itself varies. Coconut sugar is roughly 70–79% sucrose, with glucose and fructose each in the 3–9% range. Those are wide bands. Sap composition shifts with the palm variety, the age of the tree, the season, the soil, and how long the sap sat before boiling. A sugar at the top of the sucrose range and one at the bottom are meaningfully different products presented under one name.
• Processing changes it. Evaporation temperature and duration affect the final sugar profile. Two producers using different equipment on identical sap will not produce identical sugar.
• GI testing has inherent variance. The method uses a small panel of human subjects, and individual glycemic responses differ substantially. Repeat tests of the same food by different laboratories routinely produce a spread of 10 points or more.

For reference, our own granulated coconut sugar is specified at a minimum 75% sucrose with reducing sugars at a maximum 5%. That places it in the upper part of the industry range – which matters here, because a higher sucrose fraction and a lower reducing-sugar fraction would, if anything, push the glycemic response toward the Sydney figure rather than the Philippine one. We would rather tell you that than quote you a number that flatters the product.

The honest reading is that coconut sugar most likely sits somewhere in the 35–54 range depending on the specific product, and that no single number can be treated as a property of the ingredient category.

What this means for your label

This is where the issue stops being academic.

In the European Union, nutrition and health claims are governed by Regulation (EC) 1924/2006, and only claims on the authorised list may be made. “Low glycemic index” is not an authorised health claim in the EU. Describing a product as low-GI, or implying a blood-sugar benefit, risks enforcement action from national food authorities.

In the United States, the FDA does not recognise GI as a basis for a nutrient content claim. A structure/function claim implying blood sugar benefits requires substantiation, and “our supplier’s website said 35” will not meet that standard if challenged.

Practical consequence: if you are building a product on a low-GI positioning, commission your own GI test on your own finished product through an accredited laboratory. It costs a few thousand dollars. It is considerably cheaper than a product recall or a regulatory action, and it gives you a number that describes your product rather than an ingredient category.

The part of the story that does hold up

Being straight about the GI evidence does not mean coconut sugar has nothing to offer. It means the defensible claims are different from the ones the industry usually makes.

What is well supported:

• It is minimally processed. Sap is collected, filtered and evaporated. No bleaching, no refining agents, no chemical processing. This is verifiable and it is what “clean label” buyers are actually asking about.
• It is unrefined and retains sap constituents. Coconut sugar contains minerals, inositol, mannose and amino acids that are stripped out of refined cane sugar. The quantities are small relative to a daily requirement, so the honest framing is “retains naturally occurring minerals from the sap”, not “a good source of potassium”.
• The flavour is genuinely different. The caramel and nutty notes are a real formulation asset, not a marketing line.
• The sustainability story is real and checkable. A coconut palm produces sap for decades and supports farming households continuously, rather than being cleared and replanted. If sourced through direct farmer partnerships, the traceability claim stands up to audit.
• Consumer preference is real regardless of the science. Coconut sugar sells because a large segment of buyers prefers unrefined sweeteners. That commercial fact does not depend on the GI debate resolving.

What does not hold up: coconut sugar is not meaningfully lower in calories than cane sugar, it is still a sugar and contributes to total sugar declarations exactly as sucrose does, and there is no good evidence it is nutritionally superior in any quantity a person would actually consume.

Claims you can make safely

Three tiers, from safest to riskiest:

• Safe in every market: “unrefined”, “minimally processed”, “made from coconut palm sap”, “no bleaching or refining agents”, “single-origin Indonesian”, “certified organic”. These are factual descriptions of process and origin, and they are verifiable from your supply chain documentation.
• Defensible with your own data: a specific GI value measured on your finished product by an accredited laboratory, stated with the testing body named.
• Avoid: “low glycemic” without your own testing, “diabetic-friendly”, “healthy sugar”, “won’t spike blood sugar”, or any implied blood-glucose benefit. These are the claims that draw regulatory attention in both the EU and the US, and they are unsupportable on the current evidence.

If low GI is genuinely the requirement

If your product concept depends on a low glycemic response rather than on a clean-label sweetener, coconut sugar is probably the wrong tool. Allulose, monk fruit, stevia and soluble fibre systems deliver a much lower glycemic response with far better substantiation.

Coconut sugar’s case is a different one: an unrefined, traceable, distinctively flavoured sweetener from a sustainable perennial crop, with a supply chain you can show a customer. That case is strong. It just is not the case most of the industry is making.

What we can tell you about our product

We publish our actual analytical data rather than a category figure. Every shipment of our organic coconut sugar carries a batch-specific Certificate of Analysis including the sucrose, glucose and fructose split, so your R&D and regulatory teams can work from measured numbers for the specific material they have.

We do not claim a glycemic index for our sugar, because the published data does not support a single number and we would rather you build your claims on something that survives scrutiny.

Request specifications and a sample and we will send the full COA for the current production batch.

See also: our coconut sugar range, certifications, how we source.

Sources

1. Philippine Coconut Authority GI testing and University of Sydney GI measurement, as summarised at Coconut sugar – Wikipedia
2. University of Sydney Glycemic Index Database, glycemicindex.com
3. Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods

This article is general information for food industry professionals and is not regulatory advice. Confirm all label claims with a qualified regulatory consultant for your target market.