Sugar Association flags “misleading” alternative sweetener labeling claims to FDA

05 Jun 2020 --- The Sugar Association has filed a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Citizen Petition to ensure the presence of alternative sweeteners and added sugar content in food is effectively communicated to consumers. The petition requests the FDA to issue industry-wide regulatory guidance so that labels clearly indicate the type and quantity of alternative sweeteners. The Sugar Association argues that “no/low/reduced added sugars” claims are misleadingly implying that new products are healthier than the traditional versions of the foods. However, this has reignited the longstanding debate around the potential benefits and risks of sweeteners, with the Calorie Control Council set to conduct a review of the petition.

“In actuality, the reformulated products are often higher in calories or contain alternative sweeteners that consumers are not familiar with, and may have undesirable dietary qualities, such as adverse gastrointestinal effects. The growing use of such alternative sweeteners poses particular concerns in the diets of children, for whom the effects of sweeteners are not well established,” the petition reads.

Combating this, the petition calls for ingredient labels to clearly disclose the presence of all alternative sweeteners not already declared on the Nutrition Facts label. Health organizations should advise against the consumption of non-nutritive sweeteners by children. Likewise, the type and quantity of each non-nutritive sweetener used should be disclosed in milligrams per serving on products consumed by children, states the Association

Some alternative sweeteners associated with gastrointestinal disturbances should be disclosed to consumers at the minimum threshold of effect, the petition details. The Sugar Association targets sugar alcohols and allulose in this space, specifically, considering the labeling claims may not be associated with improved dietary health or nutritional value.

The term “(Sweetener)” following the name of each sweetening ingredient in the ingredients list could improve labeling transparency.The petition further requests the FDA to have the term “(Sweetener)” follow the name of each sweetening ingredient in the ingredients list that is not already disclosed on the Nutrition Facts label. Moreover, increasing labeling transparency around the use of alternative sweeteners in food and beverage products would further FDA’s Nutrition Innovation Strategy. Enacted in 2018, this FDA strategy aims to take a fresh look at what can be done to reduce preventable death and disease related to poor nutrition.

Responding to the cause
The US-based Calorie Control Council (CCC) is now conducting a thorough review of the Sugar Association’s petition. It maintains that low- and no-calorie sweeteners (LNCS) are a safe and effective alternative to added sugars. 

“As one of the many tools to combat obesity and diabetes, low- and no-calorie sweeteners (LNCS) help consumers reduce added sugars, reduce calories and assist in the management of weight and blood sugar. Like other ingredients, LNCS are required to be included on the ingredient list of product labels of all foods and beverages, allowing consumers to determine whether a product contains a particular sweetener,” the association concludes.

In March, the CCC also objected to the results of a Yale University study that found that carbohydrate consumption with sucralose-sweetened beverages causes metabolic impairment leading to insulin sensitivity. The CCC further maintains its support that sucralose does not negatively impact insulin sensitivity in healthy adults.

Alternative sweeteners soar – but at what cost?
Sugar reduction has become an established industry “megatrend,” in part driven by rising consumer awareness on the adverse health outcomes relating to high sugar consumption, as well as sugar taxes driving product reformulation. The use of prominent front-of-package claims regarding sugar content has proliferated throughout the aisles of grocery stores. Innova Market Insights found that 8 percent of all new food and beverage launches in 2018 featured a sugar reduction claim.

No added sugar claims were the most prominent, making up 42 percent of all sugar-related claims, followed by sugar-free claims (36 percent) and lower sugar claims (27 percent). Such claims have become increasingly important to consumers. In the US, 82 percent of shoppers report actively looking for at least one front-of-package claim. 

The Sugar Association is concerned about how this quest for sugar reduction has led food and beverage manufacturers to reformulate products with high-intensity sweeteners, novel sweeteners and sugar alcohols to mimic the taste and functionality of sugar without the consumer’s knowledge. 

The Sugar Association has asked the FDA to label alternative sweeteners more clearly.“[The Sugar Association] urges FDA to take enforcement action to stop misleading claims about added sugars content. For example, a leading brand of peanut butter claiming to have less sugar has more calories per serving than the company’s regular peanut butter. In another case, a manufacturer attempts to justify a reduced sugar claim by decreasing the portion size of the lower-sugar version of its regular product. Such examples abound throughout the marketplace and must be promptly halted,” the petition reads. 

The debate at hand
There has been a substantial debate concerning the health implications of alternative sweeteners and industry has yet to establish a clear consensus. The International Sweeteners Association (ISA) argued in a report in January that there is an extensive body of robust scientific evidence that shows that low and no-calorie sweeteners are safe and can be part of broader strategies to reduce sugar intake.

Sweeteners can be a helpful tool in reducing calorie and sugar intake, when used in place of sugar and as part of a balanced diet and a healthy lifestyle, an ISA spokesperson previously shared with NutritionInsight.

An Australian study from last December contradicted this notion. The researchers concluded that people who use low-calorie sweeteners are more likely to gain weight and may be at higher risk of developing Type 2 diabetes.

However, the nutrition industry has witnessed a pronounced global anti-sugar sentiment with the UK soft drink industry levy (SDIL) being in effect for almost two years and countries including South Africa and Portugal following suit. Research published in the PLOS Medicine journal underscore these efforts noting that policies on the labeling, marketing and taxation of sugary soft drinks positively impact the behavior of consumers in drinking less sugary beverages.

Edited by Anni Schleicher

To contact our editorial team please email us at editorial@cnsmedia.com