Impact of substituting added sugar in carbonated soft drinks by intense sweeteners in young adults in the Netherlands: example of a benefit–risk approach
- 1.3k Downloads
Substituting added sugar in carbonated soft drinks with intense sweeteners may have potential beneficial, but also adverse health effects. This study assessed the benefits and risks associated with substituting added sugar in carbonated soft drinks with intense sweeteners in young adults in the Netherlands.
A tiered approach was used analogous to the risk assessment paradigm, consisting of benefit and hazard identification, exposure assessment and finally benefit and risk characterization and comparison. Two extreme scenarios were compared in which all carbonated soft drinks were sweetened with either intense sweeteners or added sugar. National food consumption survey data were used, and intake of added sugar and intense sweeteners was calculated using the food composition table or analytical data for sweetener content.
Reduction in dental caries and body weight were identified as benefits of substituting sugar. The mean difference in total energy intake between the scenarios was 542 kJ per day in men and 357 kJ per day in women, under the assumption that no compensation takes place. In the 100% sweetener scenario, the average BMI decreased 1.7 kg/m2 in men and 1.3 kg/m2 in women when compared to the 100% sugar scenario. Risks are negligible, as the intake of intense sweeteners remains below the ADI in the substitution scenario.
Substitution of added sugar by intense sweeteners in carbonated soft drinks has beneficial effects on BMI and the reduction in dental caries, and does not seem to have adverse health effects in young adults, given the available knowledge and assumptions made.
KeywordsBenefit–risk assessment Intense sweeteners Added sugar Carbonated soft drinks
We would like to thank the Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority (VWA) who financially supported this research.
Conflict of interest
The Authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
- 1.Anonymous (2006) Guidelines for a healthy diet 2006. Health Council of the Netherlands, The HagueGoogle Scholar
- 3.Bao Y, Stolzenberg-Solomon R, Jiao L, Silverman DT, Subar AF, Park Y, Leitzmann MF, Hollenbeck A, Schatzkin A, Michaud DS (2008) Added sugar and sugar-sweetened foods and beverages and the risk of pancreatic cancer in the national institutes of health-AARP diet and health study. Am J Clin Nutr 88:431–440Google Scholar
- 5.Bes-Rastrollo M, Sanchez-Villegas A, Gomez-Gracia E, Martinez JA, Pajares RM, Martinez-Gonzalez MA (2006) Predictors of weight gain in a Mediterranean cohort: the Seguimiento Universidad de Navarra study 1. Am J Clin Nutr 83:362–370 quiz 394–365Google Scholar
- 6.European Commission. Food safety. http://ec.europa.eu/food/index_en.htm. Accessed 7 Dec 2009
- 10.Drewnowski A, Bellisle F (2007) Liquid calories, sugar, and body weight. Am J Clin Nutr 85:651–661Google Scholar
- 11.Duffey KJ, Popkin BM (2006) Adults with healthier dietary patterns have healthier beverage patterns. J Nutr 136:2901–2907Google Scholar
- 13.EFSA (2007) EFSA Scientific colloquium 6 summary report: Risk-benefit analysis of foods—methods and approaches. In: Risk-benefit analysis of foods—methods and approaches. European Food Safety Authority, ParmaGoogle Scholar
- 14.EFSA European Food safety authority. http://efsa.europe.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620753812_home.htm . Accessed 7 Dec 2009
- 15.EFSA (2006) Opinion of the scientific panel on food additives, flavourings, processing aids and materials in contact with Food on a request from the commission related to a new long-term carcinogenicity study on aspartame. European Food Safety Authority, Parma, pp 1–44Google Scholar
- 16.EFSA (2008) The setting of nutrient profiles for foods bearing nutrition and health claims pursuant to article 4 of the regulation (EC) º No 1924/2006. European Food Safety Authority, Parma, pp 1–44Google Scholar
- 17.EFSA (2009) Updated opinion on a request from the European Commission related to the 2nd ERF carcinogenicity study on aspartame, taking into consideration study data submitted by the Ramazzini Foundation in February 2009. European Food Safety Authority, Parma, pp 1–18Google Scholar
- 19.Forshee RA, Anderson PA, Storey ML (2008) Sugar-sweetened beverages and body mass index in children and adolescents: a meta-analysis. Am J Clin Nutr 87:1662–1671Google Scholar
- 20.Fransen H, de Jong N, Hendriksen M, Mengelers M, Castenmiller J, Hoekstra J, van Leeuwen R, Verhagen HA (2010) Tiered approach for risk-benefit assessment of foods. Risk Anal [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
- 24.Hulshof KFAM, Balder HF, ter Doest D (2006) Suikers in de Nederlandse Voeding. TNO Kwaliteit van Leven, ZeistGoogle Scholar
- 25.Hulshof KFAM, Ocké MC, van Rossum CTM, Buurma-Rethans EJM, Brants HAM, Drijvers JJMM, ter Doest D (2003) Resultaten van de Voedselconsumptiepeiling 2003. Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu, BilthovenGoogle Scholar
- 26.Husoy T, Mangschou B, Fotland TO, Kolset SO, Notvik Jakobsen H, Tommerberg I, Bergsten C, Alexander J, Frost Andersen L (2008) Reducing added sugar intake in Norway by replacing sugar sweetened beverages with beverages containing intense sweeteners—A risk benefit assessment. Food Chem Toxicol 46:3099–3105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 31.Larsson SC, Bergkvist L, Wolk A (2006) Consumption of sugar and sugar-sweetened foods and the risk of pancreatic cancer in a prospective study. Am J Clin Nutr 84:1171–1176Google Scholar
- 38.Malik VS, Schulze MB, Hu FB (2006) Intake of sugar-sweetened beverages and weight gain: a systematic review. Am J Clin Nutr 84:274–288Google Scholar
- 40.McNeill G (2000) Energy intake and expenditure. In: Garrow J, James W, Ralph A (eds) Human nutrition and dietetics. Churchill Livingstone, London, p 900Google Scholar
- 43.Raben A, Vasilaras TH, Moller AC, Astrup A (2002) Sucrose compared with artificial sweeteners: different effects on ad libitum food intake and body weight after 10 wk of supplementation in overweight subjects. Am J Clin Nutr 76:721–729Google Scholar
- 48.SCF (2000) Opinion: re-evaluation of acesulfame-K with reference to the previous SCF opinion of 1991. Scientific Committee on Food. European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
- 49.SCF (2000) Revised opinion on cyclamic acid and its sodium and calcium salts. Scientific committee on food. European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
- 51.Schofield WN (1985) Predicting basal metabolic rate, new standards and review of previous work. Hum Nutr Clin Nutr 39(Suppl 1):5–41Google Scholar
- 55.Sigman-Grant M, Morita J (2003) Defining and interpreting intakes of sugars. Am J Clin Nutr 78:815S–826SGoogle Scholar
- 56.Tordoff MG, Alleva AM (1990) Effect of drinking soda sweetened with aspartame or high-fructose corn syrup on food intake and body weight. Am J Clin Nutr 51:963–969Google Scholar
- 57.Tucker KL, Morita K, Qiao N, Hannan MT, Cupples LA, Kiel DP (2006) Colas, but not other carbonated beverages, are associated with low bone mineral density in older women: the Framingham osteoporosis study. Am J Clin Nutr 84:936–942Google Scholar
- 58.van Dam RM, Seidell JC (2007) Carbohydrate intake and obesity. Eur J Clin Nutr 61(Suppl 1):S75–S99Google Scholar
- 61.Whiting SJ, Vatanparast H, Baxter-Jones A, Faulkner RA, Mirwald R, Bailey DA (2004) Factors that affect bone mineral accrual in the adolescent growth spurt. J Nutr 134:696S–700SGoogle Scholar
- 62.WHO (2003) Diet, nutrition and the prevention of chronic diseases: report of a joint WHO/FAO expert consultation. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
- 63.WHO Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA). http://www.who.int/ipcs/food/jecfa/en/ . Accessed 7 Dec 2009
- 64.WHO (1993) Saccharin and its salts. WHO food additives series 32. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar