• Learning Centre
• Media centre
• Translated material
• Publications
• Monitoring and Surveillance
• Science in FSANZ
• APEC 2011
• About FSANZ

• Home
• Science and Education
• Publications
• Evaluation Report Series
• Intense Sweeteners Survey(March2004)

Consumption of Intense Sweeteners in Australia and New Zealand

1  Introduction

1.1 Background

The use of food additives in the food supply is set out in the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (‘the Code’).   In December 2000 the Code was adopted and replaced the joint Australian Food Standards Code (‘the Old Code’) and the relevant New Zealand Food Regulations (NZFR).   After a two-year transition period, the Code became fully implementable from 20December 2002.   This research forms part of the Food Standards Australia New Zealand’s (FSANZ) Evaluation Strategy 2001-2003 (FSANZ 2001), designed to assess the impact of implementing the Code.

Standard 1.3.1 Food Additives of the Code specifies requirements for the use of intense sweeteners and other additives. This standard was adopted in Australia and New Zealand in July 1999, earlier than the adoption of the remainder of the Code (FSANZ 2002).

1.2 Key Features of the Code in Relation to Intense Sweeteners

Prior to the development of the Code, in both Australia and New Zealand, food additive permissions were set out in the individual food commodity standards. The new food additives standard brings the food additives that may be used in all foods together into one generic standard that covers all foods.   Some maximum limits for intense sweeteners included under the old Code are retained but some additional restrictions were introduced for cyclamates and saccharin. As previously, a food additive must not be added to a food unless expressly permitted by the Code.

Under the old Code and the NZFR, seven intense sweeteners (previously known as artificial sweeteners) were approved for use.   In 2001, an eighth intense sweetener, neotame, was approved for use. The approval for use of individual intense sweeteners under the new Code depends on whether the sweetener is listed in Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 of Standard 1.3.1 (see Table 1).   Generally, Schedule 1 additives have restricted permissions in specific food groups, whilst Schedule 2 additives are permitted at good manufacturing practice levels (GMP) in the majority of processed foods and beverages, although some sweeteners are listed in both schedules. For sweeteners, there are extra requirements stated in Clause 4 of Standard 1.3.1, which states that where GMP permissions are given, intense sweeteners may only be added to food in an amount necessary to replace the sweetness normally provided by sugars, or as a flavour enhancer.   Some sweeteners (aspartame, sucralose and thaumatin) are listed in both schedules as they have GMP permissions in the majority of processed foods and beverages, subject to the aforementioned restriction, but additional permissions in specific food categories.

Table 1: Classification of Intense Sweeteners under theAustralia New Zealand Food Standards Code 2002

 

Another change over this period has been the use of the term ‘low joule’.   In the old Code, the number of food categories that could have low joule versions was restricted.   This term is now generic and can be applied to any food category providing conditions of maximum energy content are met.   As a result, intense sweeteners can now be used across a wider range of food categories than previously assessed in 1994.   In the previous study conducted by Roy Morgan Research, eightspecificcategories of food were surveyed (carbonated soft drinks, cordials, table top sweeteners, flavoured milk, flavoured yoghurts, jellies and other desserts, jams and chewing gum).

Table 2 shows for each sweetener permitted for use in New Zealand and Australia the ADI and relative sweetness compared to sucrose.   As noted earlier, the ADI represents the amount of a food additive that can be ingested daily over an entire lifetime without any appreciable risk to health.

Table 2: Intense Sweeteners Approved for Use in Australia and New Zealand

Note: *determined by the WHO/FAO Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives.
   # establishment of an ADI is not deemed necessary because of a good safety profile.

1.3  Research Objectives

The objectives of the present research were to:

• provide information on current consumption patterns of foods containing intense sweeteners for the Australian and New Zealand populations and specified sub-populations as follows:
  
  
  • country (Australia versus New Zealand);
  • gender;
  • country by gender;
  • age;
  • location (city/non-city);
  • country of birth;
  • ethnic origin;
  • education level;
  • respondent income;
  • respondent occupation;
  • diabetes (yes/no);
  • impaired glucose tolerance (yes/no);
  • weight control diet (yes/no); and
    
    
• body mass index (underweight, acceptable, overweight, obese).assess the current dietary exposure to the eight intense sweeteners permitted for use under Standard 1.3.1 of the Code against their respective reference health standards (ADIs) for both the Australian and New Zealand populations and specified sub-populations;
  
  
• identify if there are any particular sub-groups within the population whose members appear to be at risk of exceeding ADIs;
  
  
• compare information on dietary exposure to intense sweeteners estimated in 1994 to that estimated in 2002/03 for the Australian population aged 12-39 years; and
  
  
• provide information for the purposes of assessment of current safety provisions and future decision making in relation to the food additive standard.

 

Approval for conducting the survey was obtained from the Commonwealth Department of Health & Ageing Ethics Committee in 2002.   The summarised findings of the research are presented in this report.  [ more... pdf  149 kb ]

 

Execitive summary  |  2 Methodology  |  3  Key findings - Screener survey  | 4  Key findings - Diary survey  | 5  Key findings - Diary survey diabetics  | 6 Conclusions and recommendations  |  List of References  |  Appendixes

Full Report [ pdf 1069 kb ]