Low- and no-calorie sweetener intakes from beverages – an up-to-date assessment in four regions: Brazil, Canada, Mexico and the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current assessment estimated exposure to four low- and no-calorie sweeteners (LNCS) (aspartame, acesulfame potassium (AceK), steviol glycosides and sucralose) from beverages in Brazil, Canada, Mexico and the United States, using up-to-date nationally representative consumption data and industry reported-use level information. Two modelling scenarios were applied - the probabilistic model was guided by reported use level data, with estimated intake for an individual leveraging market-weighted average use level of a particular LNCS in any given LNCS-sweetened beverage type, while the distributional (brand-loyal) model assumed consumer behaviour-led patterns, namely that an individual will be brand loyal to a pre-determined beverage type. Consumer-only and general population intake estimates were derived for the overall population and individual age categories, and compared to the respective acceptable daily intake (ADI) as established by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) for each LNCS. The mean, 90th percentile and 95th percentile intake estimates were substantially lower than the ADI in both modelling scenarios, regardless of the population group or market. In the probabilistic model, the highest consumer-only intake was observed for AceK in Brazilian adolescents (95th percentile, 12.4% of the ADI), while the highest 95th percentile intakes in the distributional model were observed for sucralose in Canadian adults at 20.9% of the ADI. This study provides the latest insights into current intakes of LNCS from water-based non-alcoholic LNCS-sweetened beverages in these regions, aligning well with those published elsewhere.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".