ECONOMYNEXT – Sri Lanka’s sugar reduction policy has led manufacturers to increase their use of non-sugar sweeteners, the Institute for Policy Studies has found, highlighting loopholes in current policies that lead to misleading labels and tax loopholes.
IPS called for updating labels, expanding taxes to include NSS, introducing school bans on NSS products and increasing public awareness.
Sri Lanka has implemented a Traffic Light Labeling (TLL) system indicating high (red), medium (amber) and low (green) sugar levels, along with an excise duty on sugar-based sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs).
But IPS pointed out that as manufacturers reformulate drinks to meet sugar thresholds, a new problem has emerged – the rapid rise of non-sugar sweeteners (NSS) in “low sugar” products.
“Countries such as Chile, France, India, the Philippines and Portugal have expanded SSB taxes to include beverages containing artificial sweeteners, not just added sugar.
“This discourages excessive consumption of both sweetened and artificially sweetened beverages. For example, the Philippines applies a volumetric excise tax on SSBs containing sugar and artificial sweeteners, with both sugar and NSS subject to taxation.”
The full article is reproduced below:
Strengthening Sri Lanka’s SSB Regulations: Addressing the Rise of Non-Sugar Sweeteners
By Priyanka Jayawardena, Research Economist, Institute of Policy Studies Sri Lanka (IPS)
Noncommunicable diseases (NCDs), which account for nearly 75% of all deaths, have emerged as a major health problem in Sri Lanka over the past few decades.
Unhealthy eating habits – including excessive intake of sugar, salt and fat – continue to play a significant role in this escalating problem. To curb excessive sugar consumption, Sri Lanka introduced a Traffic Light Labeling (TLL) system indicating high (red), medium (amber) and low (green) sugar levels along with sugar-based excise duty.
tax on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB). However, as manufacturers have reformulated drinks to meet sugar thresholds, a new problem has emerged – the rapid rise of non-sugar sweeteners (NSS) in ‘low sugar’ products. This blog discusses how Sri Lanka can strengthen its SSB policies to respond to this evolving challenge.
Rise of NSS in low-sugar drinks
A recent IPS assessment of SSB markings shows that approximately 70% of green-marked SSBs and 50% of amber-marked SSBs contain NSS. While these formulation changes help products meet sugar thresholds, they contain artificial sweeteners and may pose long-term health risks.
Based on evidence from a systematic review, the World Health Organization (WHO) warns that long-term consumption of NSS is associated with a higher risk of diabetes, cardiovascular disease and mortality in adults. In addition, the review shows that a higher intake of NSS is associated with increased body weight, a higher risk of obesity,
and a higher risk of diabetes, heart disease, and death from all causes. The WHO also emphasizes that NSS should not be used for weight control or prevention of NCDs, except in individuals with diabetes who require sugar alternatives.
Reformulation using artificial sweeteners should not replace real efforts to reduce free sugar consumption.
NSS coverage under Sri Lanka’s current SSB policy
Current SSB policies in Sri Lanka – TLL and SSB taxation – do not cover or regulate the use of NSS. This allows manufacturers to reduce sugar levels to meet set thresholds while continuing to market products sweetened with artificial sweeteners.
Under the current Front of Pack Labeling (FOPL) system for SSB, the TLL criteria are based on sugar content only, meaning that products containing NSS are often labeled with green or amber labels, which can mislead consumers into thinking they are a healthier option. Similarly, artificial sweeteners are excluded from the SSB tax, creating an incentive for manufacturers to switch from sugar to NSS. These gaps highlight the need to update and strengthen SSB control policies to comprehensively address all forms of sweeteners.
What the world is doing: Lessons from global best practices
Nutrient Profile Model
The Nutrient Profile (NP) model of the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) guides governments to regulate products more comprehensively and prevent loopholes created by reformulation. The PAHO NP model considers any amount of other sweeteners to be part of the unhealthy food profile.
Warning on FOPL and sweeteners
Countries such as Mexico, Peru and Argentina have implemented two types of FOPL warning labels. Mexico’s FOPL is strongest in junk food labeling. Based on the PAHO NP model, Mexico implemented a mandatory FOPL system in 2020 that labels products high in energy, sugar, saturated fat, trans fat, sodium, non-nutritive sweeteners, and caffeine. The system uses five black warning octagons to indicate excess calories, sugar, sodium, saturated fat and trans fat, along with two warning rectangles for the presence of caffeine or non-nutritive sweeteners. This clear and striking design helps consumers quickly recognize products that may pose health risks.
Inclusion of NSS in SSB taxes
Countries such as Chile, France, India, the Philippines, and Portugal have expanded SSB taxes to include beverages containing artificial sweeteners, not just added sugar.
This discourages excessive consumption of sweetened and artificially sweetened beverages. For example, the Philippines applies a volumetric excise tax on SSB containing sugar and artificial sweeteners, with both sugar and NSS subject to taxation.
The way forward
In order to effectively reduce free sugar intake and promote healthier eating habits, national nutrition policies should adopt a comprehensive approach. As recommended in the WHO NSS guidelines, policy actions should prioritize improving overall diet quality rather than focusing solely on reducing free sugar consumption.
– Establishes fiscal policies and regulations for food and beverages containing NSS.
As practiced in other countries, Sri Lanka should introduce FOPL warning labels for products with NSS and ensure that NSS is accounted for under the SSB tax structure. In addition, requiring FOPL warning labels on products containing NSS may prompt manufacturers to improve product formulations to meet nutritional standards and minimize the presence of negative labels on their packages.
– Strengthen public awareness and communication about behavior change.
Awareness campaigns on the benefits of unsweetened foods and the importance of limiting foods and beverages containing NSS will help shape consumption patterns. Communication strategies should also emphasize practicality
ways to incorporate healthier low-carb or unsweetened alternatives into your daily diet.
– Limit the promotion and sale of food and drinks containing NSS in the school environment. Adopt and enforce a comprehensive school food policy that prohibits the marketing, advertising, and on-premises sale of foods and beverages containing NSF in the school environment, including cafeterias, sponsorships, and school events.
In conclusion, strengthening the fiscal policies and regulatory framework of SSB in Sri Lanka is essential to protect public health as the use of NSS continues to increase in response to existing sugar policies. International evidence shows that comprehensive measures – including both sugar and artificial sweeteners through fiscal policies, FOPL and sweetener warnings – are more effective than sugar-only measures.
Updating national fiscal policies and regulations to include NSS-containing products will help close current policy gaps, reduce consumer misperceptions, and promote healthier reformulation. By adopting a holistic, evidence-based approach, Sri Lanka can advance its nutrition program and better address the growing burden of diet-related NCDs.
Continue reading
Leave a Reply