Low- and no-calorie sweetener intakes in the Brazilian population estimated using added sugar substitution modelling

Figures & data

Table 1. Sweetness equivalence of six LNCS

LNCS Name	Sweetness Equivalence
Acesulfame-K	200
Aspartame	180
Cyclamate	30
Saccharin	300
Steviol Glycosides	300
Sucralose	600

LNCS = low- and no-calorie sweeteners.

Reference: JECFA (2010) and Chattopadhyay et al. (2014).

Table 2. Brazilian 2017 tonnage data of LNCS per food group (Euromonitor International 2021)

LNCS Name	Soft Drinks							Dairy Products and Alternatives (%t)	Other (%t)^a
	Cola Carbonates (%t)	Non-Cola Carbonates (%t)	Bottled Water (%t)	Concentrates (%t)	Juice (%t)	Energy Drinks (%t)	Sports Drinks (%t)
Acesulfame-K	13.98	25.13	7.79	16.10	0	0	28.79	16.37	18.5
Aspartame	51.72	50.24	38.31	33.16	0	0	57.58	37.44	42.3
Cyclamate	17.55	0	0	45.99	0	0	0	20.85	23.4
Saccharin	14.33	12.08	0	4.64	0	0	0	2.02	8.5
Steviol Glycosides	0.93	0	0	0	0	100	0	0	0.2
Sucralose	1.50	12.55	53.90	0.12	0	0	13.64	23.09	7.1

LNCS = low- and no-calorie sweeteners; %t = percentage of total tonnage (per food category).

^aTonnage data (calculated from all categories) applied to other foods and beverages with added sugar.

Figure 1. Example calculation for the ‘per food’ replacement model for sucralose.

Table 3. Estimated daily intake of added sugar in Brazil by population group (2008–2009 POF data)

Population Group	n	Added Sugar Intakes
		g day^−1			%TE
		Mean	P90	P95	Mean	P90	P95
Adolescents (10–19 y)	7,613	48.8	109.8	143.0	9.5	20.0	23.8
Young Adults (20–39 y)	13,175	37.3	89.4	113.2	7.6	17.1	20.4
Adults (40–59 y)	8,893	27.0	66.6	85.4	5.9	14.3	17.5
Elderly (60 y+)	4,322	21.5	55.3	74.0	5.3	13.1	16.1
Total (10 y+)	34,003	34.9	85.5	111.2	7.2	16.7	20.3

n = sample size; P90 = 90th percentile; P95 = 95th percentile; POF = Pesquisa de Orcamenos Familiares; %TE = percentage of total energy (in the diet).

Table 4. Estimated daily intake of acesulfame-K following replacement of added sugar on a per person or per food basis in Brazil by population group (2008–2009 POF data)

Population Group	Acesulfame-K Intakes
	Scenario 1 – ‘Per person’ replacement model				Scenario 2 – ‘Per food’ replacement model
	% cons^b	mg kg^−1 bw day^−1 (%ADI^a)			% cons^c	mg kg^−1 bw day^−1 (%ADI^a)
		Mean	P90	P95		Mean	P90	P95
Adolescents (10–19 y)	42.2	1.8 (12.2)	4.1 (27.4)	5.5 (36.4)	92.1	0.5 (3.0)	1.0 (6.8)	1.3 (8.8)
Young Adults (20–39 y)	32.0	1.1 (7.2)	2.4 (15.8)	3.1 (20.9)	89.0	0.3 (1.7)	0.6 (3.9)	0.8 (5.1)
Adults (40–59 y)	20.9	0.9 (6.0)	2.0 (13.4)	2.7 (18.3)	85.2	0.2 (1.3)	0.4 (2.8)	0.6 (3.9)
Elderly (60 y+)	17.0	0.8 (5.4)	2.0 (13.2)	2.6 (17.4)	85.2	0.2 (1.1)	0.4 (2.7)	0.5 (3.6)
Total (10 y+)	29.1	1.3 (8.4)	2.8 (18.9)	4.0 (26.9)	88.1	0.3 (1.8)	0.6 (4.3)	0.9 (5.7)

bw = body weight; JECFA = Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives; P90 = 90th percentile; P95 = 95th percentile; POF = Pesquisa de Orcamenos Familiares; %ADI = percentage of acceptable daily intake; % cons = percentage of consumers.

^aJECFA-established ADI for acesulfame-K of 15 mg kg⁻¹ bw day⁻¹ (WHO 2019).

^bIndividuals with added sugar intakes exceeding 10%TE over the recording period.

^cIncludes any individuals who consumed added sugar during the recording period.

Table 5. Estimated daily intake of aspartame following replacement of added sugar on a per person or per food basis in Brazil by population group (2008–2009 POF data)

Population Group	Aspartame Intakes
	Scenario 1 – ‘Per person’ replacement model				Scenario 2 – ‘Per food’ replacement model
	% cons^b	mg kg^−1 bw day^−1 (%ADI^a)			% cons^c	mg kg^−1 bw day^−1 (%ADI^a)
		Mean	P90	P95		Mean	P90	P95
Adolescents (10–19 y)	42.2	2.0 (5.1)	4.6 (11.4)	6.1 (15.2)	92.1	1.2 (3.1)	2.8 (6.9)	3.6 (9.0)
Young Adults (20–39 y)	32.0	1.2 (3.0)	2.6 (6.6)	3.5 (8.7)	89.0	0.7 (1.8)	1.6 (4.1)	2.1 (5.2)
Adults (40–59 y)	20.9	1.0 (2.5)	2.2 (5.6)	3.0 (7.6)	85.2	0.5 (1.3)	1.2 (3.0)	1.6 (4.0)
Elderly (60 y+)	17.0	0.9 (2.3)	2.2 (5.5)	2.9 (7.2)	85.2	0.4 (1.1)	1.1 (2.6)	1.4 (3.4)
Total (10 y+)	29.1	1.4 (3.5)	3.2 (7.9)	4.5 (11.2)	88.1	0.8 (1.9)	1.8 (4.4)	2.3 (5.9)

bw = body weight; JECFA = Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives; P90 = 90th percentile; P95 = 95th percentile; POF = Pesquisa de Orcamenos Familiares; %ADI = percentage of acceptable daily intake; % cons = percentage of consumers.

^aJECFA-established ADI for aspartame of 40 mg kg⁻¹ bw day⁻¹ (WHO 2019).

^bIndividuals with added sugar intakes exceeding 10%TE over the recording period.

^cIncludes any individuals who consumed added sugar during the recording period.

Table 6. Estimated daily intake of cyclamate following replacement of added sugar on a per person or per food basis in Brazil by population group (2008–2009 POF data)

Population Group	Cyclamate Intakes
	Scenario 1 – ‘Per person’ replacement model				Scenario 2 – ‘Per food’ replacement model
	% cons^b	mg kg^−1 bw day^−1 (%ADI^a)			%cons^c	mg kg^−1 bw day^−1 (%ADI^a)
		Mean	P90	P95		Mean	P90	P95
Adolescents (10–19 y)	42.2	12.2 (110.8)	27.5 (249.5)	36.4 (331.3)	91.6	3.8 (34.2)	8.5 (77.6)	11.2 (101.8)
Young Adults (20–39 y)	32.0	7.2 (65.5)	15.8 (143.9)	20.9 (189.7)	88.3	2.2 (19.6)	4.9 (44.8)	6.4 (58.3)
Adults (40–59 y)	20.9	6.0 (54.9)	13.4 (121.9)	18.3 (166.1)	84.5	1.6 (14.4)	3.5 (32.0)	4.8 (43.7)
Elderly (60 y+)	17.0	5.4 (49.3)	13.2 (119.8)	17.4 (158.0)	84.6	1.4 (12.3)	3.2 (29.1)	4.5 (40.7)
Total (10 y+)	29.1	8.4 (76.2)	18.9 (171.7)	26.9 (244.8)	87.4	2.3 (20.6)	5.4 (48.7)	7.2 (65.6)

bw = body weight; JECFA = Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives; P90 = 90th percentile; P95 = 95th percentile; POF = Pesquisa de Orcamenos Familiares; %ADI = percentage of acceptable daily intake; % cons = percentage of consumers.

^aJECFA-established ADI for cyclamic acid of 11 mg kg⁻¹ bw day⁻¹ (WHO 2019).

^bIndividuals with added sugar intakes exceeding 10%TE over the recording period.

^cIncludes any individuals who consumed added sugar during the recording period.

Table 7. Estimated daily intake of saccharin following replacement of added sugar on a per person or per food basis in Brazil by population group (2008–2009 POF data)

Population Group	Saccharin Intakes
	Scenario 1 – ‘Per person’ replacement model				Scenario 2 – ‘Per food’ replacement model
	% cons^b	mg kg^−1 bw day^−1 (%ADI^a)			% cons^c	mg kg^−1 bw day^−1 (%ADI^a)
		Mean	P90	P95		Mean	P90	P95
Adolescents (10–19 y)	42.2	1.2 (24.4)	2.7 (54.9)	3.6 (72.9)	92.1	0.1 (2.9)	0.3 (6.8)	0.4 (8.9)
Young Adults (20–39 y)	32.0	0.7 (14.4)	1.6 (31.7)	2.1 (41.7)	89.0	0.1 (1.8)	0.2 (4.1)	0.3 (5.4)
Adults (40–59 y)	20.9	0.6 (12.1)	1.3 (26.8)	1.8 (36.5)	85.2	0.1 (1.3)	0.2 (3.0)	0.2 (4.1)
Elderly (60 y+)	17.0	0.5 (10.8)	1.3 (26.4)	1.7 (34.8)	85.2	<0.1 (1.0)	0.1 (2.6)	0.2 (3.4)
Total (10 y+)	29.1	0.8 (16.8)	1.9 (37.8)	2.7 (53.9)	88.1	0.1 (1.8)	0.2 (4.4)	0.3 (5.9)

bw = body weight; JECFA = Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives; P90 = 90th percentile; P95 = 95th percentile; POF = Pesquisa de Orcamenos Familiares; %ADI = percentage of acceptable daily intake; % cons = percentage of consumers.

^aJECFA-established ADI for saccharin of 5 mg kg⁻¹ bw day⁻¹ (WHO 2019).

^bIndividuals with added sugar intakes exceeding 10%TE over the recording period.

^cIncludes any individuals who consumed added sugar during the recording period.

Table 8. Estimated daily intake of steviol glycosides following replacement of added sugar on a per person or per food basis in Brazil by population group (2008–2009 POF data)

Population Group	Steviol Glycosides Intakes
	Scenario 1 – ‘Per person’ replacement model				Scenario 2 – ‘Per food’ replacement model
	% cons^b	mg kg^−1 bw day^−1 (%ADI^a)			% cons^c	mg kg^−1 bw day^−1 (%ADI^a)
		Mean	P90	P95		Mean	P90	P95
Adolescents (10–19 y)	42.2	1.2 (30.5)	2.7 (68.6)	3.6 (91.1)	88.9	<0.1 (0.1)	<0.1 (0.3)	<0.1 (0.4)
Young Adults (20–39 y)	32.0	0.7 (18.0)	1.6 (39.6)	2.1 (52.1)	85.4	<0.1 (0.1)	<0.1 (0.2)	<0.1 (0.3)
Adults (40–59 y)	20.9	0.6 (15.1)	1.3 (33.5)	1.8 (45.6)	81.2	<0.1 (0.1)	<0.1 (0.2)	<0.1 (0.2)
Elderly (60 y+)	17.0	0.5 (13.5)	1.3 (33.0)	1.7 (43.5)	80.5	<0.1 (<0.1)	<0.1 (0.1)	<0.1 (0.1)
Total (10 y+)	29.1	0.8 (21.0)	1.9 (47.3)	2.7 (67.4)	84.3	<0.1 (0.1)	<0.1 (0.2)	<0.1 (0.3)

bw = body weight; JECFA = Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives; P90 = 90th percentile; P95 = 95th percentile; POF = Pesquisa de Orcamenos Familiares; %ADI = percentage of acceptable daily intake; % cons = percentage of consumers.

^aJECFA-established ADI for steviol glycosides of 4 mg kg⁻¹ bw day⁻¹ (WHO 2019).

^bOnly includes individuals with added sugar intakes exceeding 10%TE.

^cIncludes any individuals who consumed added sugar during the recording period.

Table 9. Estimated daily intake of sucralose following replacement of added sugar on a per person or per food basis in Brazil by population group (2008–2009 POF data)

Population Group	Sucralose Intakes
	Scenario 1 – ‘Per person’ replacement model				Scenario 2 – ‘Per food’ replacement model
	% cons^b	mg kg^−1 bw day^−1 (%ADI^a)			% cons^c	mg kg^−1 bw day^−1 (%ADI^a)
		Mean	P90	P95		Mean	P90	P95
Adolescents (10–19 y)	42.2	0.6 (4.1)	1.4 (9.1)	1.8 (12.1)	92.1	0.1 (0.5)	0.2 (1.1)	0.2 (1.5)
Young Adults (20–39 y)	32.0	0.4 (2.4)	0.8 (5.3)	1.0 (7.0)	89.0	<0.1 (0.3)	0.1 (0.7)	0.1 (0.9)
Adults (40–59 y)	20.9	0.3 (2.0)	0.7 (4.5)	0.9 (6.1)	85.2	<0.1 (0.2)	0.1 (0.5)	0.1 (0.7)
Elderly (60 y+)	17.0	0.3 (1.8)	0.7 (4.4)	0.9 (5.8)	85.2	<0.1 (0.2)	0.1 (0.5)	0.1 (0.7)
Total (10 y+)	29.1	0.4 (2.8)	0.9 (6.3)	1.3 (9.0)	88.1	<0.1 (0.3)	0.1 (0.7)	0.1 (1.0)

bw = body weight; JECFA = Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives; P90 = 90th percentile; P95 = 95th percentile; POF = Pesquisa de Orcamenos Familiares; %ADI = percentage of acceptable daily intake; % cons = percentage of consumers.

^aJECFA-established ADI for sucralose of 15 mg kg⁻¹ bw day⁻¹ (WHO 2019).

^bIndividuals with added sugar intakes exceeding 10%TE over the recording period.

^cIncludes any individuals who consumed added sugar during the recording period.

Table 10. Qualitative evaluation of the influence of uncertainties on the estimates of exposure to LNCS calculated for Brazilian population^a

Source of uncertainty	Direction and magnitude^b
Consumption data
Mis-/under-reporting of consumption of added sugar containing foods	- -
No consideration of tabletop sweeteners in estimates	- -
Use of data from short-term surveys to estimate chronic exposures	+
Consumption data is 10 years old, added sugar intakes may have changed	±
Data only available for individuals over 10 years	+^c
Use level data
Sweetness equivalence data not representative of patterns of use	+++
Tonnage data was not available for all product types	+/-
Tonnage data was obtained from consumption data	+/-
‘Per person’ replacement scenario
Assumes 50% of ‘excessive’^d added sugar intake replaced with a single LNCS	++
Does not consider that individual could replace greater than ‘excessive’ added sugar intake level with LNCS	-
‘Per food’ replacement scenario
Assumes 50% of added sugar in foods and beverages replaced with a single LNCS	++
Qualitative evaluation of overall effect of identified uncertainties in ‘per person’ replacement scenario
Estimates for high consumers are likely to over-estimate by a large amount, primarily due to the assumption that 50% of ‘excessive’ added sugar would be replaced with a single LNCS and the lack of incorporation of the tonnage data to provide realistic refinement to the results	+++
Qualitative evaluation of overall effect of identified uncertainties in ‘per food’ replacement scenario
Estimates for high consumers are likely to over-estimate by a moderate amount, primarily due to the assumption that 50% of added sugar would be replaced with a single LNCS; in reality multiple factors will impact the incorporation rates.	++

^aConducted in accordance with the guidance provided in Codex and EFSA (CAC 2003; EFSA 2006).

^b+,++,+++ and the uncertainties likely to cause small, medium or large overestimates of exposure respectively, and -, - - are the uncertainties likely to cause small or medium underestimates of exposure, respectively.

^cUnderestimation for individuals under 10 years, assuming a similar pattern of added sugar intake.

^dExcessive added sugar intake was defined as the portion of added sugar that exceeded the recommended intake greater than 10% total energy on a daily basis.

[JECFA] Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives. 2010. Combined compendium of food additive specifications. JECFA, 73rd Meeting, June 8–17, 2010; Geneva (Rome): Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Steviol glycosides. (FAO JECFA Monographs, No. 10); [accessed 2021 Jun 16]. http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/jecfa_additives/docs/monograph10/additive-442-m10.pdf .

 Google Scholar

Chattopadhyay S, Raychaudhuri U, Chakraborty R. 2014. Artificial sweeteners – a review. J Food Sci Technol. 51(4):611–621. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-011-0571-1.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Euromonitor International. 2021. Ingredients. London (UK): Euromonitor International; [accessed 2021 Jun 16]. https://www.euromonitor.com/ingredients-industry .

 Google Scholar

[WHO] World Health Organization. 2019. Evaluations of JECFA. List of chemicals in functional class SWEETENER. Geneva, Switzerland: Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA). [accessed 2021 June 16]. https://apps.who.int/food-additives-contaminants-jecfa-database/search.aspx?fc=66 .

 Google Scholar

[CAC] Codex Alimentarius Commission. 2003. Appendix IV. Working principles for risk analysis for application in the framework of the Codex Alimentarius. Rome. Report of the 26th Session June 30–July 7, 2003. [accessed 2021 Jun 16]. http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/Y4800E/y4800e00.htm .

 Google Scholar

[EFSA] European Food Safety Authority. 2006. Guidance of the scientific committee on a request from EFSA related to uncertainties in dietary exposure assessment. EFSA J. 438:1–54. [accessed 2021 Jun 16]. https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/438 .

 Google Scholar