Deepa Handu1, Samuel M Cohen2, Njwen Anyangwe3, Seneca E Fitch4, Lauren E Payne5, Jennifer L G van de Ligt4,6, Candace Doepker7, Daniele Wikoff8. 1. Evidence Analysis Center, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 120 S. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2190, Chicago, IL, 60606, USA. 2. Department of Pathology and Microbiology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, 985900 Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA. 3. Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Drive, College Park, MD, 20740, USA. 4. ToxStrategies, 23501 Cinco Ranch Blvd, Suite B226, Katy, TX, 77494, USA. 5. ToxStrategies, 31 College Place, Suite B118, Asheville, NC, 28801, USA. 6. College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota, 1365 Gortner Ave, St Paul, MN, 55108, USA. 7. ToxStrategies, 187 Pavilion Pkwy #223, Newport, KY, 41071, USA. 8. ToxStrategies, 31 College Place, Suite B118, Asheville, NC, 28801, USA. dwikoff@toxstrategies.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is well-recognized that consumers face many challenges in understanding and applying nutritional guidance for low-calorie sweeteners (LCS). Thus, this research aims to (1) assess how benchmarks for safe levels of consumption of LCS are utilized by researchers, and (2) understand how varying use of such benchmarks may contribute to challenges in understanding and applying nutritional guidance for LCS consumption. METHODS: A systematic mapping exercise was employed to characterize when and how acceptable daily intake (ADI) values are used as health-based benchmarks in nutrition research studies that consider the safety of LCS. RESULTS: Based on results from charting 121 studies, our findings demonstrate that comparisons of LCS intake to an ADI derived by an authoritative body have been made in a diverse set of published literature, varying widely in their objectives, approaches, and populations of interest. The majority of studies compared the ADI to intake in a population under study; these represent the type of comparison that is most consistent with the intent of the ADI. Other applications of the ADI included use as a benchmark in experimental studies, risk-benefit analyses, and metabolism studies. CONCLUSION: Although most instances of ADI use were reasonable within the context of the individual studies' objectives, the diversity in use by original-study authors amplifies the continued need for development of "best practices" regarding the use and interpretation of the ADIs in current research. Using comparisons to the ADI can be a helpful way to provide context to research findings. However, in doing so, it is important that researchers utilize the value in a manner specific with its intent, as the ADI is a metric that represents an estimate of the amount of a substance that can be consumed daily over a lifetime without presenting an appreciable risk to health.
BACKGROUND: It is well-recognized that consumers face many challenges in understanding and applying nutritional guidance for low-calorie sweeteners (LCS). Thus, this research aims to (1) assess how benchmarks for safe levels of consumption of LCS are utilized by researchers, and (2) understand how varying use of such benchmarks may contribute to challenges in understanding and applying nutritional guidance for LCS consumption. METHODS: A systematic mapping exercise was employed to characterize when and how acceptable daily intake (ADI) values are used as health-based benchmarks in nutrition research studies that consider the safety of LCS. RESULTS: Based on results from charting 121 studies, our findings demonstrate that comparisons of LCS intake to an ADI derived by an authoritative body have been made in a diverse set of published literature, varying widely in their objectives, approaches, and populations of interest. The majority of studies compared the ADI to intake in a population under study; these represent the type of comparison that is most consistent with the intent of the ADI. Other applications of the ADI included use as a benchmark in experimental studies, risk-benefit analyses, and metabolism studies. CONCLUSION: Although most instances of ADI use were reasonable within the context of the individual studies' objectives, the diversity in use by original-study authors amplifies the continued need for development of "best practices" regarding the use and interpretation of the ADIs in current research. Using comparisons to the ADI can be a helpful way to provide context to research findings. However, in doing so, it is important that researchers utilize the value in a manner specific with its intent, as the ADI is a metric that represents an estimate of the amount of a substance that can be consumed daily over a lifetime without presenting an appreciable risk to health.
Authors: Alison B Evert; Jackie L Boucher; Marjorie Cypress; Stephanie A Dunbar; Marion J Franz; Elizabeth J Mayer-Davis; Joshua J Neumiller; Robin Nwankwo; Cassandra L Verdi; Patti Urbanski; William S Yancy Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Rachel K Johnson; Alice H Lichtenstein; Cheryl A M Anderson; Jo Ann Carson; Jean-Pierre Després; Frank B Hu; Penny M Kris-Etherton; Jennifer J Otten; Amytis Towfighi; Judith Wylie-Rosett Journal: Circulation Date: 2018-08-28 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Louise Dewinter; Kristina Casteels; Karen Corthouts; Kristel Van de Kerckhove; Katrien Van der Vaerent; Kelly Vanmeerbeeck; Christophe Matthys Journal: Food Addit Contam Part A Chem Anal Control Expo Risk Assess Date: 2015-11-16
Authors: Sofie Stampe; Magnus Leth-Møller; Eva Greibe; Elke Hoffmann-Lücke; Michael Pedersen; Per Ovesen Journal: Nutrients Date: 2022-06-25 Impact factor: 6.706