Consumers Seek Clarity on Low- and No-Calorie Sweeteners
The International Food Information Council holds forum with health professionals and food safety experts
PHOTO COURTESY OF: The International Food Information Council
The International Food Information Council (IFIC) recently provided a forum for health professionals and food safety experts to discuss the latest science and consumer insights around low- and no-calorie sweeteners (LNCS).
“In today’s media landscape, headlines often sensationalize conflicting opinions on the role sweeteners should play in a healthy diet,” Wendy Reinhardt Kapsak, MS, RDN, IFIC president & CEO, said. “This leaves consumers with contradictory messages about the benefits and risks of consuming these ingredients. Because of this, we see a pressing need for clear, evidence-based communication to dispel misconceptions and empower individuals to navigate the nuances of sweetener consumption, especially timely during February, a month in which sweetness is often celebrated and enjoyed by many.”
3 in 4 Americans Look to Reduce Sugar in Their Diet
Food trends come and go, but one has stood the test of time: the search to satisfy our sweet tooths. While sweet treats will likely always be popular, reducing sugar intake is also a top health priority. According to the 2023 IFIC Food & Health Survey, 72% of Americans say they are looking to limit or avoid sugar in their diet. While sugar replacements, such as LNCS and sugar alcohols, are becoming more prevalent in products with reduced added sugar, their expanding usage often leads to questions about safety.
Safety In Question
During IFIC’s recent educational webinar, Breaking Down the Basics and Biological Fate of Low- and No-Calorie Sweeteners, the safety of LNCS took center stage. IFIC Senior Director of Nutrition Communications, Kris Sollid, RD, presented IFIC data in tandem with Bernadene Magnuson, PhD, a food toxicologist with expertise in safety and government regulations of food ingredients, including LNCS.
“Believe it or not, LNCS are some of the most studied ingredients in our food supply,” Kris Sollid, RD, said. “But given conflicting messages to the public about their safety, public sentiment toward these ingredients seems to be at an all-time low.”
According to the 2023 IFIC Consumer Survey, Public Perceptions of Dietary Sweeteners, 20% of survey takers are unsure about who is responsible for approving the use of LNCS in the US. Eight percent believe no U.S. authority is responsible, while only 33% believe that LNCS approval is the responsibility of the US government.
Are Some Sweeteners Better Than Others?
According to the 2023 IFIC Sweeteners Consumer Research, LNCS consumers would rather consume sweeteners referred to as “natural” (44%) than those referred to as “artificial” (21%). While LNCS are often described collectively by a variety of terms, each is unique and derived from a different source. Some, like stevia and monk fruit sweeteners, come from plants and are often labeled as “natural.” While others, like aspartame and sucralose, are considered man-made and described as “artificial.” Safety experts agree that the difference in origin is arbitrary. One LNCS is not safer than another simply because of its “natural” status.
“Let’s be clear, low- and no-calorie sweeteners are not a ‘magic bullet’ for health, nor are they required in a healthy eating pattern. Still, the scientific evidence supports their safe consumption— not their demonization,” Sollid explained. “They are just a tool that offers calorie reduction from added sugars without having to sacrifice sweetness or enjoyment.”
“Our words matter,” added Reinhardt Kapsak. “Being thoughtful about the language we attach to food and ingredients will foster more productive public discourse, something all food conversations can use more of given today’s communications landscape.”
Looking for a reprint of this article?
From high-res PDFs to custom plaques, order your copy today!
