Dataset Information

Low-/No-Calorie Sweeteners: A Review of Global Intakes.

ABSTRACT: The current review examined published data on the intake of all major low-/no-calorie sweeteners-aspartame, acesulfame-K, saccharin, sucralose, cyclamate, thaumatin and steviol glycosides-globally over the last decade. The most detailed and complex exposure assessments were conducted in Europe, following a standardized approach. Japan and Korea similarly had up-to-date and regular intake data available. The data for other Asian countries, Latin America, Australia/New Zealand and global estimates, evaluated by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), while available, were shown to be more limited in terms of design. Overall, the studies conducted since 2008 raised no concerns with respect to exceedance of individual sweetener acceptable daily intake (ADIs) among the general population globally. The data identified do not suggest a shift in exposure over time, with several studies indicating a reduction in intake. However, some data suggest there may have been an increase in the numbers of consumers of low-/no-calorie-sweetened products. Future research should consider a more standardized approach to allow the monitoring of potential changes in exposure based upon events such as sugar reduction recommendations, to ensure there is no shift in intake, particularly for high-risk individuals, including diabetics and children with specific dietary requirements, and to ensure risk management decisions are based on quality intake analyses.

SUBMITTER: Martyn D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5872775 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Low-/No-Calorie Sweeteners: A Review of Global Intakes.

Martyn Danika D Darch Maryse M Roberts Ashley A Lee Han Youl HY Yaqiong Tian Tina T Kaburagi Naoko N Belmar Pablo P

Nutrients 20180315 3

The current review examined published data on the intake of all major low-/no-calorie sweeteners-aspartame, acesulfame-K, saccharin, sucralose, cyclamate, thaumatin and steviol glycosides-globally over the last decade. The most detailed and complex exposure assessments were conducted in Europe, following a standardized approach. Japan and Korea similarly had up-to-date and regular intake data available. The data for other Asian countries, Latin America, Australia/New Zealand and global estimates ...[more]

PMID: 29543782

Similar Datasets

Project description:Effects of isocaloric (sweetness differences but constant calories) preloads and isosweet (caloric differences but constant sweetness) preloads, as well as preloads that were neither isosweet nor isocaloric (sweetness and caloric differences) on subsequent ad libitum meal and total (preload + ad libitum) energy intakes were investigated. Thirty-five crossover studies were eligible for inclusion, representing 116 comparisons (41, isocaloric; 41, isosweet; and 34, neither isosweet nor isocaloric). References of existing reviews and literature from 4 databases were searched. The calculated raw mean differences in ad libitum and total energy intakes were pooled in meta-analyses using a random-effects model and the inverse of the variance as the weighting factor. Energy intakes at an ad libitum meal were significantly lower for low-/no-calorie sweetener (LNCS)-sweetened compared with unsweetened preloads in the isocaloric comparison (-55.5 kcal; 95% CI: -82.9, -28.0 kcal; P < 0.001); however, the difference in energy intake was not significant in additional sensitivity analyses (i.e., removal of comparisons where the matrix was a capsule and when xylitol was the LNCS). For the isosweet comparison, although the pooled energy intake at the ad libitum meal was significantly greater with the LNCS-sweetened preload compared with the caloric sweetener (CS)-sweetened preload (58.5 kcal; 95% CI: 35.4, 81.7 kcal; P < 0.001), the pattern was reversed when total energy intake was considered (-132.4 kcal; 95% CI: -163.2, -101.6 kcal; P < 0.001), explained by only partial compensation from the CS-sweetened preload. The results were similar when assessing ad libitum and total energy intakes when unsweetened compared with CS-sweetened preloads were consumed. Unsweetened or LNCS-sweetened preloads appear to have similar effects on intakes when compared with one another or with CS-sweetened preloads. These findings suggest that LNCS-sweetened foods and beverages are viable alternatives to CS-sweetened foods and beverages to manage short-term energy intake.

Project description:BackgroundConsumption of low-calorie sweeteners (LCSs) has increased markedly during the past several decades, yet the prevalence of LCS consumption in recent years is currently unknown.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to describe LCS consumption in the United States and to characterize consumption by sociodemographic subgroups, source, frequency, eating occasion, and location.DesignCross-sectional study using National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data from 2009 to 2012. The prevalence of LCS consumption was assessed using two 24-hour dietary recalls, while the frequency (number of times per day), occasion (meal vs snack vs alone), and location of LCS consumption (at home vs away from home) was assessed using data from the one, in-person, 24-hour dietary recall.ParticipantsNational Health and Nutrition Examination Survey participants (2 years old or older) either in 2009-2010 (n=9,047) or in 2011-2012 (n=7,939). After excluding participants with implausible energy intake (n=44), the final sample size was 16,942.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the proportion of individuals consuming one or more foods, beverages, or packets containing LCSs during at least one of their two dietary recalls.Statistical analyses performedData were weighted to provide national estimates and Stata frequency procedures for complex survey design were used for all analyses.ResultsOur findings were that 25.1% of children and 41.4% adults reported consuming LCSs. Most LCS consumers reported use once daily (80% of children, 56% of adults) and frequency of consumption increased with body weight in adults. LCS consumption was higher in females compared with males among adults, and in obese individuals, compared with overweight and normal-weight individuals. Individuals of non-Hispanic white race/ethnicity also had higher prevalence of consumption compared with non-Hispanic blacks and Hispanics and those in the highest tertile of income had higher LCS consumption compared with individuals of middle or low income across LCS product categories in adults, and for LCS beverages and LCS foods in children. Most LCS consumers reported consuming LCS with meals (64% of adults, 62% of children) and the majority of LCS consumption occurred at home (71% and 72% among adults and children, respectively).ConclusionsLCS consumption is highly prevalent in the United States, among both children and adults. Well-controlled, prospective trials are required to understand the health impact of this widespread LCS exposure.

Project description:BackgroundReplacement of caloric sweeteners with lower- or no-calorie alternatives may facilitate weight loss or weight maintenance by helping to reduce energy intake; however, past research examining low-calorie sweeteners (LCSs) and body weight has produced mixed results.ObjectiveThe objective was to systematically review and quantitatively evaluate randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies, separately, that examined the relation between LCSs and body weight and composition.DesignA systematic literature search identified 15 RCTs and 9 prospective cohort studies that examined LCSs from foods or beverages or LCSs consumed as tabletop sweeteners. Meta-analyses generated weighted mean differences in body weight and composition values between the LCS and control groups among RCTs and weighted mean correlations for LCS intake and these parameters among prospective cohort studies.ResultsIn RCTs, LCSs modestly but significantly reduced all outcomes examined, including body weight (-0.80 kg; 95% CI: -1.17, -0.43), body mass index [BMI (in kg/m²): -0.24; 95% CI: -0.41, -0.07], fat mass (-1.10 kg; 95% CI: -1.77, -0.44), and waist circumference (-0.83 cm; 95% CI: -1.29, -0.37). Among prospective cohort studies, LCS intake was not associated with body weight or fat mass, but was significantly associated with slightly higher BMI (0.03; 95% CI: 0.01, 0.06).ConclusionsThe current meta-analysis provides a rigorous evaluation of the scientific evidence on LCSs and body weight and composition. Findings from observational studies showed no association between LCS intake and body weight or fat mass and a small positive association with BMI; however, data from RCTs, which provide the highest quality of evidence for examining the potentially causal effects of LCS intake, indicate that substituting LCS options for their regular-calorie versions results in a modest weight loss and may be a useful dietary tool to improve compliance with weight loss or weight maintenance plans.

Dataset Information

Low-/No-Calorie Sweeteners: A Review of Global Intakes.

Publications

Low-/No-Calorie Sweeteners: A Review of Global Intakes.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure