Assessment of dietary intake of 10 intense sweeteners by the Italian population

Donne, Cinzia Le; Mistura, Lorenza; Goscinny, Séverine; Janvier, Steven; Cuypers, Koenraad; D’Addezio, Laura; Sette, Stefania; Catasta, Giovina; Ferrari, Marco; Piccinelli, Raffaela; Loco, Joris Van; Turrini, Aida

doi:10.1016/j.fct.2017.02.014

Cited by 32 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The later research calculated lower intake values for both sweeteners at both the mean and high-levels of intake, with up to 85%ADI determined in 2013 versus up to 59.3%ADI in 2017 for acesulfame-K, and up 40%ADI in 2013 versus up to 21.6%ADI in 2017 for aspartame. Similarly, for Italian individuals, acesulfame-K intakes were reported at up to 69%ADI by Vin et al [60] versus up to 27%ADI calculated by Le Donne et al [66], while aspartame intakes were reported at up to 30% in 2013 and up to 10%ADI in 2017. There were differences in the methodology used for the studies published in 2017 (e.g., different dietary data for Irish adults, older cut-off for Italian individuals, different definitions of high percentiles), which all impact the ability to compare the final estimated results; however, as a general finding, there was a reduction in intakes for both average and high-level consumers for these cohorts, with all intakes considerably lower than the ADIs established for the two sweeteners.…”

Section: Methodology and Trends In Intakementioning

confidence: 92%

“…A total of 19 European studies were identified from peer reviewed journals [51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69]. A further seven studies were identified from authoritative sources [70,71,72,73,74,75,76].…”

Section: Methodology and Trends In Intakementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Amongst the studies conducted using the Tier 2/Tier 3 approach [58,60,63,64,65,66,67,69], the assessments utilized the full range of consumption values from individuals in the sample population, combined with a single value for the MPL (Tier 2) or actual usage levels (Tier 3), considering a single value (simple distribution) [58,63,69], or the full range of use levels (probabilistic) [60,64,65,66,67]. …”

Section: Methodology and Trends In Intakementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some of the more recently published studies also incorporated sweetener ‘occurrence’ or ‘presence’ data for the sweeteners of interest into the model [64,65,66,67,68,69,71,72]. This component of the assessment model involves accounting for the proportion of foods within a given food category which actually contain the sweetener of interest; there were several sources used for this information, namely market research databases, such as Mintel Global New Products database [68], health service records [65,67], food label surveys [64,66,69] or industry reports [52,71,72].…”

Section: Methodology and Trends In Intakementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The results for aspartame from this study were similar to the mean and high-level intakes calculated by EFSA in 2013 [70], with mean intakes estimated at 0–30.0%ADI [60] and 1.0–40.8%ADI [70], and high-level intakes at 3.0–83.0%ADI [60], and 3.5–92.3%ADI [70]. Aspartame, as well as acesulfame-K intakes, have more recently been investigated by Buffini et al [69] (Irish adults) and Le Donne et al [66] (Italian individuals, aged 3 years and older). Buffini et al [69] examined intakes for these two sweeteners (alongside several others) using more recent dietary intake data (2011 versus 1999 in Vin et al, 2013 [60]).…”

Section: Methodology and Trends In Intakementioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

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

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Methodology and Trends In Intakementioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Methodology and Trends In Intakementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodology and Trends In Intakementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodology and Trends In Intakementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodology and Trends In Intakementioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

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

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Environmental life cycle assessment of production of the non-nutritive sweetener sucralose (E955) derived from cane sugar produced in the United States of America: The SWEET project

Blenkley,

Suckling,

Morse

et al. 2023

Int J Life Cycle Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose There is increasing concern about the detrimental health effects of added sugar in food and drink products. Sweeteners are seen as a viable alternative. Much work has been done on health and safety of using sweeteners as a replacement for added sugar, but very little on their sustainability. This work aims to bridge that gap with a life cycle assessment (LCA) of sucralose derived from cane sugar grown in the United States of America (USA). Methods An attributional, cradle-to-gate LCA was conducted on sucralose production in the USA. Primary data were derived from literature for the chlorination process, and all other data from background sources. Results are reported via the ReCiPe 2016 (H) method, with focus given to land use, global warming potential (GWP), marine eutrophication, mineral resource scarcity, and water consumption. Because sucralose has a much greater perceived sweetness than sugar, impacts are expressed both in absolute terms of 1 kg mass and in relative sweetness equivalence terms to 1 kg sugar. Scenario modelling explores the sensitivity of the LCA results to change in key parameters. This research was conducted as part of the EU Horizon 2020 project SWEET (Sweeteners and sweetness enhancers: Impact on health, obesity, safety and sustainability). Results and discussion GWP for 1 kg sucralose was calculated to be 71.83 kgCO2-eq/kg (sugar from sugarcane is 0.77 kgCO2-eq/kg). However, on a sweetness equivalence basis, GWP of sucralose reduces to 0.12 kgCO2-eq/kgSE. Production of reagents was the main contributor to impact across most impact categories. Sugar (starting material for sucralose production) was not a majority contributor to any impact category, and changing the source of sugar has little effect upon net impact (average 2.0% variation). Instead, uncertainty in reference data is a greater source of variability: reagent use optimization reduces average impact of sucralose production by approximately 45.4%. In general, sucralose has reduced impact compared to sugar on an equivalent sweetness basis, however, due to data uncertainty, the reduction is not significant for all impact categories. Conclusion This LCA is the first for sucralose produced from cane sugar produced in the USA. Results indicate that sucralose has the potential to reduce the environmental impact of replacing the sweet taste of sugar. However, data were derived from literature and future collaboration with industry would help in reducing identified uncertainties. Accounting for functional use of sucralose in food and drink formulations is also necessary to fully understand the entire life cycle impact.

show abstract