The ABCs of Sweeteners in Schools:
A Science-Based Discussion
Tami Ross, RD, LD, CDE
Lexington, KY
tarossrd@insightbb.com
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
1
www.schoolnutrition.org
Learning Objectives
At the conclusion of the session, attendees will be able to:
1) Demonstrate a keen understanding of the research
on sweeteners & how this applies to children’s
diets .
2) Integrate the latest consumer insights regarding
parents’ perceptions & attitudes towards sweeteners
into long-range planning for the development of food &
beverages that meet state-mandated legislation.
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
2
www.schoolnutrition.org
Types of Sweeteners
 Nutritive Sweeteners
 Low Calorie Sweeteners (LCS)
 Blends
 Polyols (Sugar Alcohols)
 Other Sweeteners
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
3
www.schoolnutrition.org
ABC’s of Sweeteners
About the sweetener
Benefits of the sweetener
Concerns & Consensus on safety &
use of the sweetener
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
4
www.schoolnutrition.org
Choices, Choices &
More Choices…






Safety
Uses
Mouth feel
Taste
Cost
Calories
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
5
www.schoolnutrition.org
Obesity is a calorie imbalance issue –
no single food or ingredient is the sole
cause OR sole solution
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
6
www.schoolnutrition.org
Source: 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans
Nutritive Sweeteners of Interest
 Sucrose (sugar)
 Fructose
 High fructose corn syrup (HFCS)
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
7
www.schoolnutrition.org
Sugar –
About, Benefits, Consensus





Disaccharide – glucose + fructose
1 tsp table sugar = 15 calories
Often sweetener of choice – tabletop, home use
Individual consumption often higher than realized
More costly than other nutritive sweetening options
Benefits:
 Wide range of uses
Consensus:
 Can be part of a healthy diet in moderation
8
Sources: AHA, 2010
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
www.schoolnutrition.org
Fructose – About,
Benefits & Consensus
 Naturally occurring - fruits, vegetables, honey, sucrose
 ~ same calories as sugar
 Free flowing crystalline sweetener
 Can be substituted for sugar in wide variety foods & beverages
Benefits:
 Texture & flavor enhancement
 Clear, light mouth feel – similar to sugar
 Increased sweetness over sugar (~1 ½ x sweeter)
 Potential for calorie reduction – less needed to achieve sweetness
 Potential for cost saving
Consensus:
 Can be part of healthy
diet in moderation
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
9
www.schoolnutrition.org
High Fructose Corn Syrup
(HFCS) – About & Benefits
•





Fructose & HFCS are different sweeteners
Similar to sucrose (sugar) in many respects – sweetness & calories
comparable
Blend of fructose & glucose
Enzymatic processing of corn syrup
Many “viral” urban myths
Scientific perspective lost in the debate


Benefits:
Less expensive than sugar

Useful beyond sweetening - Enhances
flavor, stability, moistness, browning
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
10
www.schoolnutrition.org
HFCS - Consensus
 Meets FDA’s requirements for use of the term “natural”
 Can fit in a healthy diet in moderation
 Metabolized like sucrose
Melanson, et al. Nutrition. 23(2)(2007)
Recent short term study – HFCS not metabolized differently in the
body from sucrose
 No evidence HFCS is uniquely responsible for obesity
American Medical Association (2008) concluded –
No scientific proof HFCS is a cause of obesity compared to other
caloric sweeteners
 Research continues
Source: www.ers.usda.gov
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
11
www.schoolnutrition.org
FDA Approved
Low Calorie Sweeteners (LCS)






Acesulfame Potassium (Ace K)
Aspartame
Neotame
Saccharin
Stevia (steviol glycoside extracts) - GRAS
Sucralose
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
12
www.schoolnutrition.org
Low-Calorie Sweeteners
by Definition
Ingredients added to foods or beverages to impart
sweetness without adding a significant amount of
calories
Aliases:






artificial sweeteners
intense / high intensity sweeteners
no-calorie sweeteners
non-nutritive sweeteners
sugar replacers / replacements
sugar substitutes
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
13
www.schoolnutrition.org
The LCS Difference
Calories & Sugar…
LCS may help consumers meet “Dietary Guidelines for Americans”
recommendations to reduce sugar intake - particularly to decrease
use of sugar-sweetened foods & beverages to reduce caloric intake &
help with weight control
Source: HHS and USDA, 2005
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
14
www.schoolnutrition.org
FDA Approval Process
Extensive safety testing and review process
 FDA considers short and long-term toxicity, carcinogenicity,
reproductive toxicity studies
Basic questions for review:






How & where is the additive (sweetener) made & who makes it?
What will it do as a food ingredient?
How will it be consumed?
Who (adults, children, pregnant women) will consume it?
How much will each group consume?
Has it been shown to be safe and without adverse
effects?
Sources: ADA, 2004; FDA, 2007; IFIC, 2006; 21 CFR 171; IFIC, 2000
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
15
www.schoolnutrition.org
Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI)
 The amount of sweetener that can be safely
consumed daily over a lifetime, without risk
 Set by FDA (mg/kg body weight/day)
 Conservative estimate - 1/100 maximum level
at which no adverse effects are observed
Sources: Nabors, 2007; ADA, 2004; IFIC, 1996
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
16
www.schoolnutrition.org
Approved LCS
Acceptable Daily Intakes
Low-calorie sweetener
ADI
(mg/kg body
weight/day)
Acesulfame Potassium (Ace-K)
15
Aspartame
50
Neotame
18
Saccharin
15
Sucralose
5
Sources: ADA, 2004; Kroger, 2006
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
17
www.schoolnutrition.org
ADI Equivalents
To reach the ADI for aspartame a 50 pound (23 kg)
child would have to consume daily:
 6 12-oz. cans diet soda; OR
 14 4-oz. servings sugar-free gelatin; OR
 32 packets tabletop sweetener (e.g., Equal, NutraSweet)
Source: CCC, 2005
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
18
www.schoolnutrition.org
Estimated Daily Intake (EDI) vs.
ADI
Research shows EDI of LCS are far below the ADI





Ace-K:
Aspartame:
Neotame:
Saccharin:
Sucralose:
EDI = 20% of ADI for adults
EDI = 6% of ADI in general adult pop.
EDI = 0.2% of ADI
EDI = 12% of ADI
EDI = 32% of ADI for adults & children >2 yo
Sources: ADA, 2004; Kroger, 2006; Renwick, 2006; IFIC, 2000 , ADA EAL 2006
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
19
www.schoolnutrition.org
Saccharin – About & Benefits






Oldest - discovered in 1878
300 times sweeter than sugar
Not metabolized; calorie-free
Heat stable
Used as a tabletop sweetener & in foods/beverages
Brand names:
 Sweet ‘N Low®, Sweet Twin®. Sugar Twin®
Sources: ADA, 2004; FDA, 2006; Kroger, 2006; Henkel, 2006
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
20
www.schoolnutrition.org
Saccharin –
Consensus on Safety
Studies in 1970’s - linked high doses of saccharin
over lifetime of exposure to bladder cancer in laboratory rats
Relevance of rat studies to humans
Mechanism by which saccharin causes bladder cancer in rats found to be
irrelevant to humans, based on physiological differences between the two
species
Human studies show no evidence that saccharin causes cancer
Dec 21, 2000 – warning label removed
Authoritative organizations (ADA, ACS, AMA) - agree that
saccharin use is safe
Sources: Henkel, 2006; Kroger, 2006; ADA, 2004; NCI, 2006; IFIC. 2000; FDA, 2006
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
21
www.schoolnutrition.org
Get the facts…
National Cancer Institute Fact Sheet –
Artificial Sweeteners and Cancer:
Questions and Answers
http://www.nci.nih.gov/cancertopics/factshe
et/Risk/artificial-sweeteners#2
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
22
www.schoolnutrition.org
Aspartame – About & Benefits








1981 – Initial approval by FDA
160-220 times sweeter than sugar
Made of 2 amino acids:
Aspartic acid + phenylalanine
Metabolized as protein (4 kcal/g)
Minimal caloric contribution due to small amount needed
Unstable when exposed to high heat - not recommended for baking
Phenylketonuria (PKU) - should not consume
Warning on labels of products containing aspartame
Brand names: NutraSweet®, Equal®
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
23
www.schoolnutrition.org
Aspartame –
Consensus on Safety
 National Toxicology Program and National Cancer Institute determined
no clear link between aspartame use & brain cancer, following
suggestions of 1996 epidemiological analysis.
 2006 - European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) reaffirms safety
 April 2007 – FDA reaffirms safety
 September 2007 - Expert panel confirms safety of aspartame in
Critical Reviews in Toxicology report
 Based on an extensive scientific literature review
 No evidence that aspartame is carcinogenic
Sources: EFSA, 2006; Soffritti, et al, 2007; FDA, 2006 & 2007; Magnuson, et al, 2007; NIC 2006
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
24
www.schoolnutrition.org
American Dietetic Association
Evidence Analysis on LCS
 Considered published, peer-reviewed, human data only
 Similar conclusions regarding benefits
 No convincing evidence of harm
 Strength of evidence for safety conclusions differ slightly primarily
due to lack of toxicology testing performed on human subjects
 Continued monitoring recommended due to limited human data on
safety
Sources: ADA, 2004; FDA, 2007, ADA EAL 2006
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
25
www.schoolnutrition.org
What’s the Evidence?
ADA Evidence Analysis Library
http://www.adaevidencelibrary.com/
Overall strength of the available supporting
evidence:
Grade I - Good
Grade II - Fair
Grade III - Limited
Grade IV – Expert Opinion
Grace V – Not assignable
NOTE: Non-nutritive sweeteners (NNS) is term used in ADA EAL
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
26
www.schoolnutrition.org
What’s the Evidence?
Adverse effects associated with aspartame
Consensus:
Children – Limited evidence suggests that aspartame consumption is not
associated with detrimental effect on blood methanol, eye problems, acne,
blood pressure, seizure disorder, or ADD in children. [Grade III – Limited #
studies]
General population - Aspartame consumption is not associated with adverse
effects in the general population. Studies have found no evidence of an effect of
aspartame on a wide range of adverse effects including hypersensitivity
reactions, elevated blood methanol or formate levels, blood cancers or brain
cancers. Neurological changes tested included cognitive functions, seizures,
headaches and changes in memory or mood. [Grade I]
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
27
www.schoolnutrition.org
Source: ADA EAL 2006, 2008
What’s the Evidence?
Adverse effects associated with aspartame
Consensus:
Several studies report that in healthy adults & children (as well as those
considered to have “sugar sensitivity” or behavioral disorders), aspartame intake
of 10-60 mg/kg body weight (ADI 50 mg/kg body weight) for periods of 1 day to
12 weeks have not been shown to have any significant effect on behavior,
cognitive function, or mood. [Grade II]
Further studies are needed using larger intakes of NNS over longer time periods
Source: ADA EAL 2006, 2008
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
28
www.schoolnutrition.org
“Aspartame toxin” theory
unwrapped…
Aspartame is completely broken down to
phenylalanine, aspartic acid & methanol – the
amounts are much less than those from common
foods/beverages:
• 1 svg skim milk vs same svg size aspartame-sweetened beverage
• Milk has 6-9x more phenylalanine; 13x more aspartic acid
• 1 svg tomato juice vs same svg size aspartame-sweetened beverage
• Juice has 4-6x more methanol
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
29
www.schoolnutrition.org
Acesulfame Potassium
(Ace-K) – About, Benefits,
Consensus on Safety






1988 – Initial approval by FDA
200 times sweeter than sugar
Combination of an organic acid & potassium
Not metabolized; calorie-free
Heat stable
Brand names: Sunett®, Sweet One®
CONSENSUS: SAFE
No human health problems reported
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
30
www.schoolnutrition.org
Sources: ADA, 2004; Kroger. 2006
Sucralose – About, Benefits,
Consensus on Safety







1998 - Initial FDA approval
600 times sweeter than sugar
Derived from sugar
Cost savings
Not metabolized; calorie-free
Heat stable
Brand name: Splenda®
CONSENSUS: SAFE
Sources: ADA, 2004; FDA, 2006; Kroger, 2006
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
31
www.schoolnutrition.org
Neotame – About,Benefits,
Consensus on Safety
 2002 – FDA approved as general purpose sweetener;
newest LCS
 ~7,000- 8,000 times sweeter than sugar
 Contains derivative of two amino acids
 Aspartic acid + phenylalanine
 PKU alert not required
• Rapidly metabolized and excreted; calorie-free
 More heat stable than aspartame in baked goods
CONSENSUS: SAFE
Sources: ADA, 2004; FDA, 2006; Kroger, 2006
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
32
www.schoolnutrition.org
Stevia Sweeteners –
About & Benefits
 December 2008- Highly purified stevia sweeteners received
GRAS status from FDA
 Derived from the stevia plant leaves - a South American shrub
 Also known as stevioside, steviol glycosides, Stevia rebaudiana
 Used as tabletop sweetener & in foods / beverages
 250-300 times sweeter than sugar
 Not metabolized; calorie-free
 Heat stable; suitable for baking
 Licorice flavor
 Familiar Brand names: Purevia, Sun Crystals, Truvia,
OnlySweet, Others…
Sources: Food & Chemical Toxicology 2008, 2009; JECFA 2008
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
33
www.schoolnutrition.org
Stevia Sweeteners –
Consensus on Safety
Extensive research shows that stevia
sweeteners are safe for human consumption
Food & Chemical Toxicology, July 2008
Vol. 46, supplement 7S
 12 studies dedicated to safety
Sources: JECFA, 2008; Food & Chemical Toxicology 2008, 2009
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
34
www.schoolnutrition.org
Low Calorie Sweetener
(LCS) Blends
 Long history of safe use
 Potential advantages:
 Improve quality of sweet taste
 Add versatility to products
 Lengthen shelf-life
 Reduce already safe levels of intake for each LCS
 Common blends in U.S.:
 Aspartame + saccharin (fountain soft drinks)
 Aspartame + Ace-K (many foods & beverages)
 Sucralose + Ace-K (many beverages)
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
35
www.schoolnutrition.org
Sources: Kroger 2006; IFIC 2000
Low Calorie Sweeteners –
Consensus on Safety
American Dietetic Association – Position Statement on
the Use of Nutritive and Nonnutritive Sweeteners (2004)
 Considered all evidence in vitro, animal, & human data, & regulatory
safety assessments (broader range of data than EAL)
 Similar conclusions drawn in ADA EAL & Position Statement
 LCS safe within context of federal nutrition recommendations &
individual health goals.
Sources: ADA, 2004; ADA EAL 2006
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
36
www.schoolnutrition.org
What about low calorie
sweeteners & appetite, energy
balance & weight?
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
37
www.schoolnutrition.org
What’s the Evidence?
Effect of NNS on appetite
(acesulfame-K, aspartame, neotame, saccharin, sucralose)
Consensus:
Adults – Taken together, the results of (mostly short-term) studies
indicate that NNS do not affect appetite in adults. [Grade I; Grade I
for aspartame alone]
Children – There are not enough studies in children to draw a
conclusion. Further research is needed. As for aspartame alone,
limited evidence suggests it does not affect appetite or food intake in
children. [Grade III; Grade III for aspartame alone]
Sources: ADA EAL 2006, 2008
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
38
www.schoolnutrition.org
What’s the Evidence?
Effect of NNS on food intake
(acesulfame-K, aspartame, neotame, saccharin, sucralose)
Consensus:
Adults – NNS do not increase food intake. Modest energy savings can result if
NNS replace sugar-sweetened products in a form that is also lower
energy. [Grade II; Grade I for aspartame alone]
Children – NNS do not increase food intake. Short-term studies suggest that
modest energy savings can result if NNS replace sugar-sweetened products in a
form that is also lower energy. Long-term studies need to assess if use of NNS in
children help to balance energy intakes with expenditures. [Grade II; Grade III
for aspartame alone]
Sources: ADA EAL 2006, 2008
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
39
www.schoolnutrition.org
The latest word…
Mattes & Popkin, Am J Clin Nutr 89:1-14, 2009
Critical review of literature suggests addition of NNS to non-energyyielding products may increase appetite – not observed when NNS
ingested with other energy sources.
Anton, et al. Appetite Mar 2010
New human trial - Tested the effect of stevia, aspartame, & sucrose on
food intake, satiety, & after meal glucose and insulin levels
First study to directly test stevia on these parameters
Conclusion: LCS sweetened beverages did not lead to eating more
& no significant differences in hunger or satiety
Brain imaging (Smeets, Netherlands)
LCS & sugar sweetened beverage both activated sensory pleasure
center
Only sugar activated brain region sensing calories
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
40
www.schoolnutrition.org
What’s the Evidence?
Effect of NNS on energy balance
(acesulfame-K,
aspartame, neotame, saccharin, sucralose)
Consensus:
Adults - Using NNS in either a calorie-restricted or ad libitum diet will affect overall energy
balance only if the NNS are substituted for higher calorie food or beverages. [Grade II]
•Use of aspartame by individuals consuming a reduced calories diet may be associated
with increased weight loss. In some cases aspartame did not affect weight loss. [Grade I]
Children – Studies do not support that the use of NNS causes weight gain among children &
adolescents. If non-caloric beverages including NNS are substituted for sugar-sweetened
beverages, there is the potential for energy savings. [Grade III]
Source: ADA EAL 2006, 2008
Phelan, et al. International Journal of Obesity, 7/28/09
LCS beverages may be important weight control strategy among weight loss maintainers
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
41
www.schoolnutrition.org
Impact of LCS on Weight Control
America on the Move program provides an example
of potential weight loss usage
Source: Rodearmel, et al, 2007
42
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
www.schoolnutrition.org
Impact of LCS on Weight Control
LCS + sensible diet + physical activity = weight loss
 Decreased body weight
 Decreased body mass index (BMI)
Calorie Balance is Key!
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
43
www.schoolnutrition.org
Top 5 Takeaways:
Low Calorie Sweeteners
1)
LCS are safe within ADI.
2)
LCS use is a choice. No one has to use them.
3)
LCS can help with weight management, but is not a magic bullet.
Children need adequate calories for growth.
4)
Sugar-free does not mean calorie-free or fat-free!
5)
Rely only on reputable sources for information (FDA, IFIC)

IFIC guidelines for evaluating Web site credibility: http://ific.org/f
Source: ADA, 2004
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
44
www.schoolnutrition.org
Common Polyols








Erythritol
Hydrogenated Starch Hydrolysates (HSH)
Isomalt
Lactitol
Maltitol
Mannitol
Sorbitol
Xylitol
Most names end in “-ol”
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
45
www.schoolnutrition.org
Polyols –
About & Benefits
 Sugar-free sweeteners - replace sugar in foods cup for cup
 Products containing these - can be labeled “sugar-free”
Potential Benefits:
 About half the calories of sugar – due to incomplete digestion &
absorption
 Do not promote tooth decay
 Safe for use by people with diabetes
Potential Drawback:
 Laxative effect – especially in children
Sources: Kroger, 2006; ADA, 2004; Steagall and Nabors, 2007; caloriecontrol.org
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
46
www.schoolnutrition.org
Polyols – Consensus on Safety
 Regulated as food additives OR
 GRAS (generally recognized as safe) - sorbitol
Source: Kroger, 2006
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
47
www.schoolnutrition.org
Other Sweeteners
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
48
www.schoolnutrition.org
For more information on
sweeteners…
 American Dietetic Association
 http://www.eatright.org
 Calorie Control Council
 www.caloriecontrol.org
 Food and Drug Administration
 http://www.fda.gov
 International Food Information Council
 http://www.ific.org
 PubMed
 http://www.pubmed.gov
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
49
www.schoolnutrition.org
3 Key Take Aways
1) Sweetener choice is an individual preference.
Choose the best fit.
2) All things in moderation.
3) Current evidence supports that these sweeteners
are safe for use.
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
50
www.schoolnutrition.org
Parents’ Attitudes Toward
Sweetening and Sweeteners
Dave Tuchler | Tate & Lyle | July 12, 2010 | Dallas, TX
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
51
www.schoolnutrition.org
www.schoolnutrition.org
A Global Supplier of Renewable Food Ingredients
• Transform corn and sugar to
value-added ingredients
• $6 billion global sales
• 5,700 employees
• London-based
• US HQ: Decatur, IL
• Serve food, beverage,
pharmaceutical, cosmetic,
paper and building industries
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
52
www.schoolnutrition.org
A Global Supplier of Renewable Food Ingredients
FOOD STARCHES
Used by food and drink producers to add texture and body and to enhance
mouthfeel
CORN SWEETENERS
Used in soft drinks and foods to provide sweetness, mouthfeel and energy
ACIDULANTS
Used to enhance flavor and preserve a wide range of foods, beverages and
pharmaceuticals
SUGAR & SYRUPS
For food and beverage ingredient use; also a strong retail presence in the UK
SPLENDA® Sucralose
A no-calorie high-intensity sweetener used in over 4,000 foods and beverages
worldwide
SPLENDA® and the SPLENDA® logo are trademarks of McNeil Nutritionals, LLC
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
53
www.schoolnutrition.org
Tate & Lyle’s Approach
Caloric Balance Equation
•
•
Value-added, full-service
(R&D, quality, customer
service)
Fact driven
– Regular global consumer
research – 16 major studies
since 2004
– Focus: sweetener attitudes,
moms, trends
•
Good health driven by
moderation, balance in
calories, and exercise
CALORIES IN
CALORIES OUT
Food
Beverages
Body Functions
Physical Activity
Caloric balance is like a scale.
To remain in balance and maintain your body weight, the calories
consumed (from foods) must be balanced by the calories used (in
normal body functions, daily activities, and exercise).*
*Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
54
www.schoolnutrition.org
More Calories In
- And The Mix is Changing
1970-2000:
• Calories per capita
among school-aged
children remained
relatively constant from
1970 until the mid-1980s,
then increased
• Energy increase is
derived largely from
carbohydrates
Source: Food Consumption Data System, Economic Research Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
55
www.schoolnutrition.org
Fewer Calories Out
• 45% of high school children had
insufficient or no physical activity
in 2003*
• In 2005, 28.4% of children had
daily participation in school PE in
2005, vs. 41.6% in 1991**
• Since 2000, over 100 million
video game consoles were sold in
the US***
• In 2001, only 13% of children
walked or biked to school, vs. 41%
in 1969****
• 10.2 million bikes sold in the US in
2009, down from 15.2 million in
1973*****
HAPPY
FLABBY
*Centers for Disease Control, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance, May 2004
**Centers for Disease Control
***NPD Group
****Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, August 2008
*****National Bicycle Dealers Assn
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
56
www.schoolnutrition.org
If You’re Not Sure, Kids’ Habits Have
Changed That Much in 20 Years
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
57
www.schoolnutrition.org
School Nutrition Directors are on the
Front Line, and Under Extreme Pressure
Pressing Issues Identified by SN Directors
Top Tier
Middle Tier
SNA 2007 Trends Report
58
District Level
National Level
Funding 51%
Funding 62%
Cost of food/food preparation 49%
Childhood obesity 51%
Local school wellness policy implementation
Cost of food/food preparation
Childhood obesity
Employee recruitment /retention
Local school wellness policy
implementation
Food safety/HACCP
Food safety/HACCP
State or local nutrition policies
Employee recruitment /retention
Customer satisfaction
State or local nutrition policies
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
www.schoolnutrition.org
Some Great Progress Has Been Made
- But not with overall milk consumption
“There has been an
88% decrease in total
calories contained in
all* beverages shipped
to schools since 2004.”
Milk Consumption
*Unfortunately, this does
not include milk.
Milk consumption has
been steadily declining.
Source: USDA
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
59
www.schoolnutrition.org
Milk is Key to Children’s Nutrition
- And flavored milk is the key to milk consumption
•
Milk is critical to nutrition
– Important source of key nutrients for school-aged kids*
– 8 oz milk is a required offering in all NSLP and SBP meals
•
Flavored milk drives the entire school milk category
– 66% of all milk served in schools**
– When flavored milk is removed, overall milk consumption
declines and a lot of milk is wasted***
•
Milk processors have developed lower sugar/calorie
chocolate milk options
– But acceptance is far from universal
*Source: USDA, Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2005
**Source: USDA, School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Studies I and III, 2005
***Source: Murphy, Douglass, Johnson - Journal of the American Dietetic Assn, 2008
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
60
www.schoolnutrition.org
Excellent Low-fat Flavored Milks Exist
- But is it possible to further lower calories and sugar?
Full-Calorie vs. Low-Fat Chocolate Milk
Typical Full-Calorie Chocolate Milk
Typical Low-Fat Chocolate Milk
Calories Per
Serving (8oz)
240
150-170
Sugar Per
Serving
27 grams
24-27 grams
Fat Per
Serving
8 grams
2.5 grams
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
61
www.schoolnutrition.org
Additional Low-fat Milk Options Exist
- All are real products, commercially available now
Other Low-Fat Milk Options
Typical
Full-calorie
Chocolate Milk
Typical
Low-Fat
Chocolate Milk
Option A
Option B
Option C
Calories Per
Serving (8oz)
240
150-170
160
140
110
Sugar per serving
27 grams
25-27 grams
25 grams
19 grams
12 grams
Fat per serving
8 grams
2.5 grams
2.5 grams
2.5 grams
2.5 grams
Sweetener(s)
Sugar or HFCS
Sugar or HFCS
Sucrose,
Fructose
HFCS,
Sucralose
Sucralose
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
62
www.schoolnutrition.org
Realistic Solutions Must Meet Key Targets
 Meet nutrition requirements
 Cost effective
 Tastes good
 Suitable for kids 5-18
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
63
www.schoolnutrition.org
What Do Moms Think?
• “I always avoid…”
• “I will not give my child…”
• “All good Moms reject…”
• Anecdotal evidence
• “It’s from the internet, it
must be true”
• Focus Group Syndrome
• Opinion without context
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
64
64
www.schoolnutrition.org
Tate & Lyle Consistently Tracks These
Attitudes
Summary of proprietary Tate & Lyle consumer insights research
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
2004/05 – Overall Health & Wellness Attitudes – Quantitative (US, UK, France, Germany)
2005 – Attitudes – Dairy – US – Qualitative
2005 – Moms & Kids – Perceptions/Attitudes – Qual.
2005 – SPLENDA® Logo – perceptions (US) – Quant.
2006 – Health, Sweetening Attitudes (Canada) – Qual.
2006 - Health, Sweetening Attitudes – Hispanics (US) – Qual.
2006 – Sugar Blending – perceptions/appeal (US) - Qual/Quant.
2007 – Sugar Blending – how to communicate blending (US) - Qual.
2007 - European Sweetening Attitudes – Quant. (UK, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Russia)
2007/08 – Overall Health & Wellness Attitudes (China) – Qual/Quant.
2008 – Sweeteners/ Logo – perceptions (US) – Quant. (4000)
- diabetic, ethnic, parents/children, category-specific detail
2008 – SPLENDA® Logo – on-package perceptions (Mexico) – Quant.
2009 – Sweeteners/ Logo/Natural – perceptions (US) – Qual/Quant. (1087)
2010 – SPLENDA® Logo /sweetener perceptions (Australia)
2010 – European Sweetening Attitudes – Quant. (UK, Germany, France, Italy, Spain) (5000)
2010 – Sweeteners and Sweetening habits (US) – Quantitative (3000)
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
65
www.schoolnutrition.org
Consumers Think Some Products
Contain Too Much Sugar
“I think products often contain too much sugar”
Parents
Strongly Agree
6%
10%
26%
33%
25%
Somewhat Agree
Neither agree
nor disagree
58%
Base = 329
Somewhat disagree
Strongly disagree
Adults
5%
8%
Base = 758
26%
31%
30%
61%
Source: Illuminas US Online Study September 2009
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
66
www.schoolnutrition.org
Not All Sweeteners Are Created Equal
- Most well known sweeteners are familiar 60-90% of Americans
Which, if any, of the
following have you
heard of?*
50%+ Awareness
*Aided Awareness
Base = 1087
Source: Illuminas US Online Study September 2009
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
67
www.schoolnutrition.org
Sweeteners Have Fans & Detractors
Some more positive, some more negative, some polarizing, some not
Most Comfortable
15% or more felt
‘Least Comfortable’
Which would you be
most (least)
comfortable with being
used as ingredients in
the food and drinks
you consume?
Choose up to three.
Not highly controversial
Felt Least Comfortable
Base = 1087
Source: Illuminas US Online Study September 2009
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
68
www.schoolnutrition.org
Majority of Consumers are NOT Negative
about HFCS or Fructose
On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is ‘not at all comfortable’ and 5 is ‘extremely comfortable,’ please indicate how
comfortable you are with the following sweetening ingredients being used in the food and drink products you consume.
Comfort Level with High Fructose Corn Syrup
17%
15%
29%
24%
15%
Extremely
comfortable
Somewhat
comfortable
32% Total Uncomfortable
68% Total Comfortable/Not Uncomfortable
Neither comfortable
Or uncomfortable
Comfort Level with Fructose
11%
14%
25% Total
Uncomfortable
Base= Total Sample (1004)
35%
26%
75% Total Comfortable/Not Uncomfortable
Source: Illuminas US Online Study May 2009
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
69
www.schoolnutrition.org
14%
Somewhat
uncomfortable
Extremely
uncomfortable
Appeal of Sweeteners Must be Measured
in Context of Benefits
I’d like to see the
amount of sugar in
food and drink
products for my child
reduced through the
replacement of some
sugar with a nocalorie sweetener,
provided it doesn’t
change the taste.
72%
Age of Oldest
Child in Household
of Parents of Children
3-15 Accept Use of
No-Calorie
Sweeteners to
Reduce Sugar
% Neutral/Somewhat or
Strongly Agree
Age 3-5
66%
Base =
416
Age 6-8
78%
Base =
260
Age 9-12
75%
Base =
269
Age 9-12
74%
Base =
260
Source: Illuminas US Online Study January 2008
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
70
www.schoolnutrition.org
*For this question, non-acceptance is indicated by
disagree rating – neutral classified as ‘no objection’
80% Of Parents Accept The Use of Sucralose
To Reduce Sugar Levels For Their Children
As you may be aware, sucralose provides sweetness but has no calories. How appealing is it
to replace some of the sugar with a small amount of sucralose in the food and drink products
you buy for consumption by your oldest child under 16?
2009
Very appealing
12%
8%
35%
24%
80% Appeal/Accept
Base = 329
Consistent with 2007 measurement
18%
Somewhat
appealing
Neither appealing
nor unappealing
Somewhat
unappealing
Not at all appealing
Source: Illuminas US Online Study September 2009
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
71
www.schoolnutrition.org
The Chocolate Milk Test
Which version of
chocolate milk would
you prefer for your
oldest child aged
under 16?
Moms evaluated labels of
two chocolate milk
options for their kids
- Their preferences may
surprise you
Source: Illuminas US Online Study January 2008
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
72
www.schoolnutrition.org
70% of Parents Preferred a Sucralose Reduced
Sugar Chocolate Milk Over a Typical Low-Fat Milk
•
Even 54% of HIS Rejecters
chose the Sucralose
version!
•
What people say is often
different from what they do
15%
Selected
Source: Illuminas US Online Study January 2008
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
73
www.schoolnutrition.org
70%
Selected
Appeal was strong across all children’s age groups
Of those with a
preference
Total Parents
Which version
of chocolate
milk would you
prefer for your
oldest child
aged under 16?
With
Sucralose
70%
82%
Preference
for reduced
calorie milk
78%
78%
Age 3-5
Base = 386
Without
Sucralose
15%
82%
Age 6-8
Base = 228
No
preference
9%
80%
Age 9-12
Base = 232
Neither
6%
Base = Parents
who expressed
a preference
Base = 1205
Source: Illuminas US Online Study January 2008
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
74
www.schoolnutrition.org
90%
Age 13-15
Base = 241
The Driver Was Calorie/Sugar Reduction
You said that you prefer Option B [with sucralose] of the chocolate milk for your child.
Why do you feel this way?
34%
No/les s c alories
32%
No/les s s ugar
13%
Healthy/Nutritious
10%
No/les s fat
70%
No/les s s odium/c arbs
3%
C ontains protein
3%
C ontains s kim milk/other ingredients
3%
G ood/s ame tas te
Base = 1205
Base = 831
Source: Illuminas US Online Study January 2008
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
75
www.schoolnutrition.org
1%
Sweeteners Have Been Used in Kids’ Products for Years
Case Study: Hawaiian Punch - An Iconic Brand
• Excellent
acceptance since
Sept 2005
reformulation
• Calories per serving
decreased to 80,
from original 120
Change
Sept 05
ANNUAL SALES
• Reduced nutritive
sweeteners through
use of small amount
of sucralose
HAWAIIAN PUNCH FRUIT JUICY RED DRINK
128 OZ 1480064608
Source: IRI
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
76
www.schoolnutrition.org
Summary
• Schools have tremendous influence over kids’ health
• Driving milk consumption is important
– And flavored milk drives overall milk consumption
• Options exist that can help in the goal of further reducing calories
– And a wide variety of sweeteners is acceptable to parents
• The growing obesity problem requires courage in challenging
conventional wisdom, to deliver solutions that make a difference
– Chocolate milk is an excellent opportunity
Copyright © 2009-2010 School Nutrition Association. All Rights Reserved.
77
www.schoolnutrition.org