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

Abstract

BackgroundIn 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. ObjectiveTo 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.” MethodsUsing 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. ResultsThe 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. ConclusionsDespite 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.