Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38469427›Full record

ArticleCurrent developments in nutrition2024

Assessing the Policy Implications of Different Definitions for Added Sugars: An Analysis Across the Australian Packaged Food and Beverage Supply.

Daisy H Coyle, Tazman Davies, Fraser Taylor, Kylie Howes, Simone Pettigrew, Alexandra Jones

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current developments in nutrition, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Daisy H CoyleFaculty of Medicine, The George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Tazman DaviesFaculty of Medicine, The George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Fraser TaylorFaculty of Medicine, The George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Kylie HowesFaculty of Medicine, The George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Simone PettigrewFaculty of Medicine, The George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Alexandra JonesFaculty of Medicine, The George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: In recent years, various definitions of "added sugars" have emerged across jurisdictions. Although it is clear how these definitions differ, there is limited understanding of the policy implications associated with these variations. Objective: To test the potential policy implications of different definitions of "added sugars" on the Australian packaged food supply, we developed a method to estimate the content of "added sugars" in packaged foods and applied this to 3 different definitions of "added sugars": (i) United States Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) added sugar definition, (ii) the World Health Organization (WHO) free sugar definition, and (iii) a comprehensive definition that was developed from a review of the evidence on "added sugars." Methods: Using a representative sample of 25,323 Australian packaged foods, the "added sugar" content and proportion of products that contain "added sugar" under the 3 definitions were estimated. In addition, a comparative analysis exploring the impact of the US FDA definition (least comprehensive) vs. the comprehensive definition was conducted to understand potential implications of adopting different regulatory definitions in Australia. Results: The US FDA definition identified the lowest number and proportion of products with any "added sugars" at 14,380 products (representing 56.8% of all products), followed by the WHO free sugar definition at 15,168 products (59.9%) and the comprehensive definition at 16,260 products (64.2%). The mean estimates for "added sugars" were 8.5 g/100 g, 8.7 g/100 g, and 9.6 g/100 g for the US FDA, WHO, and comprehensive definitions, respectively. Compared with the US FDA definition, the comprehensive definition captured an additional 7.4% of products, largely driven by nonalcoholic beverages, special foods and fruit, vegetables, nuts, and legumes. Conclusions: Despite small variations in different "added sugars" definitions, their application has some significant policy implications. Findings highlight the importance of applying a comprehensive regulatory definition that adequately captures all sugars that have been linked to poor health.

Indexed as

Added sugarfood labelingfood policypackaged foodpopulation healthpublic health nutrition

Identifiers

PMID38469427
PMCPMC10926138

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.