Food and drink sweetener debate in summary:
- Fresh studies link sweeteners to cognitive and metabolic risks
- Industry bodies push back on safety claims
- Regulators remain split on interpretation of data
- Manufacturers rethink reformulation strategies
- Consumers left confused as consensus stalls
A short while ago, artificial sweeteners made global headlines. Again.
This time it was a study published in Neurology by Brazil’s Longitudinal Study of Adult Health (ELSA) cohort, which found that high consumption of seven common sweeteners (aspartame, saccharin, acesulfame, erythritol, sorbitol, xylitol, and tagatose) was linked to faster cognitive decline.
It was only one in a spate of damning findings on synthetic sugar substitutes to emerge in the last 12 months.
Earlier that same month, researchers in Berlin linked artificially sweetened drinks with an increased risk of liver disease. In July meanwhile, an Australian study concluded that a single can of artificially sweetened soft drink each day could increase the risk of developing type 2 diabetes by 38%. The list goes on.
Far from provide clarity though, each has only served to muddy the waters further when it comes to the role of artificial sweeteners within food and drink, fuelling an industry debate that has raged on for decades.
Within 24 hours of the Brazil study hitting newsstands for example, the International Sweeteners Association had weighed in.
“Sweeteners provide a safe and effective way to reduce sugar and calorie intake, a key public health goal for managing conditions such as obesity and type 2 diabetes,” they insisted. “We advocate for a holistic view of the scientific evidence, which consistently demonstrates that approved sweeteners are a safe and useful tool for public health.”
It’s a back-and-forth that only serves to leave lobbyists and researchers at loggerheads, manufacturers divided and consumers utterly confused. So, why can’t this debate be settled? And is consensus a realistic goal?
Divided sweetener views
On both sides of the debate, there are some staunchly held views.
For many, artificial sweeteners have a necessary (and safe) role to play in aiding sugar reduction, with many manufacturers embracing their application across the likes of soft drinks, confectionery, bakery and ice cream.
This has had a significant impact on consumer diets. In the US, data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), found consumption of artificial sweeteners among adults rose from 21.1% in 2003 to 24.9% in 2010, and among children, from 7.8% to 18.9% in the same period, as manufacturers opted for synthetic alternatives to sugar in everyday products.
“In the eternal debate of artificial versus non-artificial versus sugar, there is a role for artificial sweeteners in the future of food,” says Abigail Storms, VP of sweeteners and fibres at Tate & Lyle. She flags sucralose as one example, which accounted for 29% of the global product launches in the last five years, according to Mintel, more than any other individual sweetener.
In February, Storms points out, The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) published its Scientific Opinion reaffirming the ingredients’ “status as a safe food ingredient.” That “comprehensive re-evaluation – the most thorough in over two decades - and its findings provide reassurance to consumers that they can continue to trust in the safety of sucralose.”
On the other hand, there are plenty of food and drink manufacturers for which the decision to steer clear of any artificial sweeteners has become a cornerstone of their brand.
At soft drinks challenger Dash Water, the brand’s two founders – Alex Wright and Jack Scott – have been vocal in their concerns around artificial sweeteners as “neither healthy nor neutral” and calling for industry to take more decisive action.
“Challenging artificial sweeteners has been part of DASH’s mission from day one,” says Scott. “That belief has only strengthened over time, as more studies are published each year, suggesting that artificial sweeteners are not a consequence-free alternative to sugar.”
At Pip Organic too, there has been a conscious decision to avoid sweeteners and provide parents with natural alternatives, says co-founder Karen O’Flaherty. “We believe that people are becoming more aware of what they are putting in their bodies as information becomes more accessible and an understanding of how food is made becomes more understood - especially in UPFs,” she says. “We believe we are now at a turning point in mindset where even modern sweeteners will be questioned by consumers as to why they are being added to food and drink and if they are something they want to consciously consume.”
Some go further still, with Paris-based tech firm Yuka actively campaigning against the use of aspartame in Europe and the US.
Muddying the waters
There are all sorts of reasons this debate “refuses to die,” says Tim Spector, co-founder of ZOE. One, the complexity of asking if artificial sweeteners as a whole are safe. “It bundles together very different compounds, consumed in different amounts, by different people, for different reasons. That is not one scientific question: it’s many.” Equally, each study takes a slightly different approach. Some look at weight, others at blood sugar, appetite, the gut or long-term disease risk. “Different sweeteners may also behave differently, so treating them as one category quickly muddies the waters.”
Kawther Hashem, senior lecturer in public health nutrition and head of research and impact at Action on Salt & Sugar, agrees. “The science is hard to settle neatly because different studies look at different sweeteners, doses, age groups and health outcomes. These are not all the same ingredients, so talking about them as if they are one thing is not always helpful.”
The outcome of all this is inevitably consumer confusion, however, says Spector. “Consumers get whiplash from headlines. One-week sweeteners are linked to cancer, the next they help weight loss. Without context (which sweetener, which study type, compared to what?), the public are understandably divided, or tune out altogether.
Reaching consensus
So, is there a way to find common ground?
For Hashem, it will require plenty more research. “Greater consensus will need better long-term research looking at individual sweeteners, real-world consumption and health outcomes over time,” she says. “Some clarity is possible, but we also need to accept that the focus should not just be on replacing sugar with sweeteners, but on shifting diets towards less sweetness overall and more minimally processed foods.”
A more collaborative approach could also help move the dial, believes Spector. This would require coordination between researchers, funders, regulators, journals, and industry to agree on shared definitions, protocols, and reporting standards, however.
Scott, however, is a little more circumspect. “As long as the big players in the soft drinks category continue to lean heavily on artificial sweeteners in their drinks, the debate will continue,” he believes. “We believe the focus should instead be on greater transparency, simpler ingredients, and giving consumers more genuinely different options, not just reformulated versions of the same approach.”
The debate then, lives on.