Perspective: Standards for Research and Reporting on Low-Energy (“Artificial”) Sweeteners

Abstract

Widely differing views exist among experts, policy makers, and the general public with regard to the potential risks and benefits of reduced- or low-energy sweeteners (LES) in the diet. These views are informed and influenced by different types of research in LES, with differing hypotheses, designs, interpretation, and communication. Given the high level of interest in LES, and the public health relevance of the research evidence base, it is important that all aspects of the research process are framed and reported in an appropriate and balanced manner. In this Perspective, we identify and give examples of a number of issues relating to research and reviews on LES, which may contribute toward apparent inconsistencies in the content and understanding of the totality of evidence. We conclude with a set of recommendations for authors, reviewers and journal editors, as general guidance to improve and better standardize the quality of LES research design, interpretation, and reporting. These focus on clarity of underlying hypotheses, characterization of exposures, and the placement and weighting of new research within the wider context of related prior work.

The effects of low-calorie sweeteners on energy intake and body weight: a systematic review and meta-analyses of sustained intervention studies

“…In planning the present review, we set out to resolve these different conclusions in the light of the comparisons made between LCS and different controls and the recent publication of further relevant RCTs. Specifically, we framed our literature search strategies and data analyses according to three questions concerning potential effects of LCS on BW 14 : the effects of (1) LCS compared with sugar (i.e., when there is a difference in energy content of the target beverages and/or foods consumed, while taste is controlled); (2) LCS compared with water or nothing given to the comparator group (i.e., where there is no meaningful difference in energy content between treatments, while there is a difference in sweet taste); and (3) LCS in capsules vs placebo capsules (i.e., where there is no meaningful difference in energy content between treatments, nor a difference in taste). The first of these questions bears on a primary intended use of LCS, namely the effects of reduction in sugar and energy content of beverages and foods.…”

Low-calorie sweeteners in the human diet: scientific evidence, recommendations, challenges and future needs. A symposium report from the FENS 2019 conference

“…Source: Adapted from Ashwell et al (65) Ashwell et al (65) , a better understanding of the differing views on the risks and benefits of LCS among experts, policymakers and the general public should be prioritised. Countering misinformation, where appropriate, is needed to ensure a balanced reporting of the public health relevance of the totality of the research evidence base (70) . This should be done together with public health messages which boost public understanding of LCS, focusing on their safety and the appropriate use of LCS within the context of a healthy diet.…”

Effects of the Daily Consumption of Stevia on Glucose Homeostasis, Body Weight, and Energy Intake: A Randomised Open-Label 12-Week Trial in Healthy Adults

“…However, significant controversy exists regarding the effects of NNS consumption on body weight and metabolic health outcomes [ 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 ], with effects ranging from harmful to neutral to beneficial. The discrepancy between study outcomes has been attributed to methodological limitations [ 8 ], while significant issues as to how the evidence base on NNS is generated, interpreted, and communicated by the expert community also exist [ 9 ]. The need for more long-term randomised trials on the effects of NNS consumption on metabolic health outcomes and body weight is emerging.…”