Tiered intake assessment for low- and no-calorie sweeteners in beverages

ABSTRACT

A tiered intake assessment approach is presented and applied to derive the maximum potential global low- and no-calorie sweeteners (LNCS) intake estimates. The US and Uk markets served as representative for the world and the EU region, respectively, to determine the maximum potential exposure for acesulfame potassium (AceK), aspartame, saccharin, steviol glycosides, and sucralose in various subpopulations, including brand-loyal consumers. Conservative intake estimates for LNCS used in non-alcoholic beverages were calculated for the general population 2 + y, toddlers (12–35 months (US) or 18–35 months (UK)), young children 3–9 y, adolescents 10–17 y, adults 18–64 y, elderly 65–74 y, and very elderly 75 + y based on assumed uses in high beverage consumption markets, leveraging either the 2-day food consumption data from the 2013–2016 US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey or the 4-day food consumption data from the 2008–2017 UK National Diet and Nutrition Survey Rolling Programme. Strong concordance between the refined budget method and the brand-loyal deterministic approach was shown, the latter assumes the maximum industry-reported global LNCS use level is present in 100% of non-alcoholic beverages. This study shows that safety of LNCS in beverages at proposed use levels can be supported for any geography, with all intake estimates falling below the acceptable daily intake in refined assessments. Importantly, this study shows the refined budget method to be a valid first-tier screening assessment in prioritising those LNCS that may benefit from more refined intake assessments when warranted.

KEYWORDS:

• Low- and no-calorie sweeteners (LNCS)
• food additive
• budget method
• exposure
• acesulfame potassium (AceK)
• aspartame
• saccharin
• steviol glycosides
• sucralose

View correction statement:

Correction

Disclosure statement

NLT, LMB and APH do not report any conflicts of interest. MMJ is employed by the American Beverage Association.

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed on the publisher’s website.

Correction Statement

Please add the major correction line: This article was originally published with errors, which have now been corrected in the online version. Please see Correction (http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19440049.2022.2160593)

Additional information

Funding

This work was funded by the American Beverage Association