Skip to main content
Knowledge4Policy
Knowledge for policy

Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Knowledge Gateway

A reference point for public health policy makers with reliable, independent and up-to date information on topics related to promotion of health and well-being.

  • Page | Last updated: 08 Apr 2021

Implemented policies to address sweeteners intake

Examples of implemented policies to address sweeteners intake

(low/no calorie sweeteners)a

 

Restrict or eliminate choiceb

School food policies

  • Greece: Artificial sweeteners are not allowed in junior high school and high school canteens for some beverages (chamomile, tea, sage).
  • Hungary: no artificial sweetened soft drinks for school children <6 yrs.
  • Latvia: Soft drinks with food additives (incl. sweeteners) not allowed, except for lunch.
  • Malta: sweeteners are not allowed in schools, as part of the 'School Food and Beverage Standards'.
  • Spain: Foods should be free from artificial sweeteners.
  • Wales: fizzy soft drinks including diet or sugar free versions in primary and secondary schools are not allowed.
  • Northern Ireland: artificial sweeteners permitted for combination drinks (combining water, milk, unsweetened fruit or veggie juice, yoghurt or milk drinks).
EU
  • The EU fruit and vegetable and milk scheme, financed through the EU's Common Agricultural Policy, provides fruit, vegetables and milk to children in schools, in order to increase increase their consumption. Among the criteria established, the products to be distributed to schools must not contain sweeteners or artificial flavour enhancers ( DG AGRI , EU 2016 ).
  • Australia, Brazil: beverages with sweeteners are excluded from schools (due to minimal nutritional value).

Guide choice through (dis)incentivesb

Soft drink tax

Estonia ( WHO 2017 )
  • From 01/01/2018, non-alcoholic beverages e.g. soft drinks, sweetened milks and juices (including 100%) will be taxed on content of sugar and sweeteners. The multi-stage levy will be as follows: Products with artificial sweeteners - 0.10 €/L, products with sweeteners and sugar content of 5-8  g/100 ml -  20 € cents/L, and finally products with sweeteners and sugar content exceeding 8  g/100 ml – 0.30 €/L.
  • Excise duty of approx. 0.11€/L for drinks with added sugar and artificial sweeteners, including sodas and fruit drinks. 
  • Tax applying on various rates on salt, sugar, caffeine content of various ready to eat food categories, including soft drinks (both with sugar or sweeteners). The soft drink tax amounts to 0.02 €/L for products with more than 8 g/100ml of added sugars, excepting drinks with more than 25% fruit or vegetable content or at least 50% of milk.
Finland ( ECSIP 2014 )
  • Excise tax of 0.22€/L on beverages with more than 0.5% of sugar, 0.11€/L on sweetener-based soft drinks and waters. Producers with an annual production volume of less than 50,000 L are exempted.

Provide informationb

Labelling legislation

  • EU Regulation 1169/2011 on food information to consumers includes mandatory labelling rules related to intense sweeteners and polyols. See 4.2 for details

Voluntary labelling

Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Lithuania, Sweden ( Livsmedelsverket )
  • Sweeteners are not allowed in Keyhole products. The Keyhole health logo labelling system by the Swedish National Food Agency is used in Scandinavian countries. It is based on a nutrient profile model and aims to identify healthier packaged food choices within a food category, and to stimulate food manufacturers to reformulate and develop healthier products.

Public health campaign

  • The UK Eatwell guide is a policy tool from Public Health England to define government recommendations on healthy eating. Concerning sugar reduction the guide states that 'If you add sugar to your food or drinks, gradually reduce the amount you add until your taste buds adapt and you can cut it out altogether. Alternatively try using a calorie free sweetener instead.'

a In this table the terminology used to refer to sweeteners is as given in the literature source (e.g. artificial sweeteners), and may not coincide with the term adopted for the purposes of this brief.

b Based on the Nuffield intervention ladder as described in Public Health: ethical issues from the Nuffield Council on Bioethics Nov 2007 (pdf)