As public health guidance tightens around sweeteners in children’s drinks, manufacturers face a tricky balancing act: reducing sugar, meeting taste expectations and innovating responsibly. Sarah Harris speaks to industry experts Laurent Oger of the ISA and food consultant Dr Bryan Quoc Le about the science, safety and future of sweetened beverages for kids.
In the ever-evolving conversation about children’s diet, health and well-being, the subject of sweeteners has once again been thrust into the spotlight. A recent report from the UK’s Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) has set a new tone by recommending that younger children – those under the age of five – should not be given drinks containing artificial or non-sugar sweeteners such as aspartame, stevia, saccharin or sucralose. The move reflects a growing recognition that while sweeteners have long been positioned as a solution to rising sugar intake, their role in children’s diets is far from straightforward. For the food and beverage industry, particularly those supplying and formulating ingredients for children’s products, the guidance marks a crucial moment. Sweeteners are not merely functional tools for reducing sugar; they are highly symbolic of an industry’s ongoing effort to meet public health goals while satisfying consumer expectations. The SACN’s stance, however, signals that precautionary measures around children’s health may take precedence over technological convenience or consumer preference.
From safety approval to precautionary guidance
For decades, the narrative around sweeteners has been shaped by rigorous safety evaluations carried out by regulatory bodies such as the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). These agencies have repeatedly concluded that approved sweeteners are safe to consume within established acceptable daily intake levels. Aspartame, for example, is considered safe at up to 40mg per kilogram of body weight in Europe, and 50mg per kilogram in the US, levels that far exceed the typical consumption of even heavy users.
Yet, the fact that a substance is safe according to toxicological thresholds does not mean it is free of broader health implications. The World Health Organisation’s (WHO) 2023 guideline issues a conditional recommendation against using non-sugar sweeteners for weight control or to reduce noncommunicable disease risk. Its analysis concluded that while sweeteners might reduce energy intake in the short term, their long-term benefits are unproven. Epidemiological studies have also suggested possible links between regular consumption of artificially sweetened beverages and increased risks of obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and even allcause mortality. The SACN’s guidance reflects this cautious approach. The committee’s concern is not that sweeteners are toxic at regulated levels, but that they may reinforce a preference for sweetness at a stage when a child’s palate is still developing. By introducing and normalising sweet tastes early in life – whether from sugar or from substitutes – there is a risk of shaping dietary preferences that endure well into adulthood. Water, which should be the default drink for children, becomes less appealing in comparison, while unsweetened options lose ground.
As Dr Bryan Quoc Le, founder and principal consultant at Mendocino Food Consultant, puts it: “Regulating the free sugar and non-sugar sweeteners (NSS) intake of young children through beverages is a commendable proactive approach by the SACN to prevent long-term health risks such as obesity and type 2 diabetes. However, further research on the relationship between NSS and health is still needed to strengthen recommendations and justifications regarding sweetened drink consumption”.
Why early exposure matters
Childhood nutrition sets the foundation for lifelong health outcomes. Beverages play a disproportionately important role, not only because they are consumed daily, but also because they can either complement or displace more nutrient-dense options. A sweetened fruit drink, for example, might push aside milk, leading to lower intake of calcium and protein. Even when sugar is replaced with a zero-calorie sweetener, the nutritional compromise remains: the child still misses out on essential micronutrients and is encouraged to expect sweetness as a baseline feature of hydration.
Dental health adds another layer of complexity. While sugar is directly implicated in tooth decay, artificially sweetened beverages are often acidic, which can erode enamel. For children, whose enamel is thinner and more vulnerable, the combination of acidity and sweetness presents a challenge that cannot be dismissed simply because calories are reduced. The question of metabolic impact is more contentious. Some research suggests that sweeteners can alter the gut microbiome in ways that may affect glucose tolerance and weight regulation, although findings remain inconsistent. The absence of robust long-term studies in children leaves policymakers hesitant to endorse sweeteners as a safe alternative.
Industry at a crossroads
For manufacturers and ingredient suppliers, these developments demand a recalibration of strategy. The beverage market has long relied on sweeteners to balance taste with calorie reduction. Parents, under pressure to limit sugar while still providing drinks their children will accept, have often welcomed artificially sweetened options as a compromise. But with public health bodies increasingly discouraging these products for young children, companies face the challenge of innovating beyond the sweetener-versus-sugar paradigm. Laurent Oger, director general of the International Sweeteners Association (ISA), notes that the broader public health context cannot be ignored: “The rates of overweight and obesity in children and adolescents have been rising globally and most countries in their nutritional guidelines for children recommend, among others, limiting the intake of added sugars. For example, the World Health Organisation recommends reducing the intake of free sugars to less than 10% of total energy intake in both adults and children, based on the impact of excess sugars intake on weight gain and dental health.”
He added that while low or no-calorie sweeteners are not recommended for infants, “research shows that replacing sugar-sweetened beverages with alternatives sweetened with low/no-calorie sweeteners have beneficial effects in children adiposity”, and that paediatric associations recognise their potential role for children managing obesity or diabetes.
This dual perspective – precautionary guidance for younger children, alongside acknowledgement of potential benefits in specific contexts for older children – captures the complexity of the challenge facing beverage makers. Removing sweeteners entirely risks alienating consumers who rely on their taste and calorie benefits, while maintaining them for young children now raises red flags in the public health discourse.
Sweeteners, by their very nature, pose formulation challenges when removed. As Le explains, “Some of the technical challenges involved in removing these sweeteners include alteration of taste, poor acceptance by children in terms of palatability, and disqualification of the beverage for the aforementioned claims,” such as ‘low calorie’ or ‘sugar-free’. The reality is that many brands have built their identity around these claims, and reformulating without sweeteners could mean losing not only flavour appeal but also regulatory and marketing advantages. The issue of labelling also looms large. Le notes that companies are responding by adopting front-of-pack nutrition labelling systems, such as the traffic-light scheme, which provides immediate visual cues to consumers about fat, sugar and salt levels. At the same time, they are adapting marketing practices by limiting promotions in locations that exploit children’s ‘pester power’, such as checkout areas. These measures help build trust, but they also underscore the reputational sensitivity of the category.
For Oger, communication is central to the industry’s ability to maintain credibility. “Parents and caregivers should have access to science-based information to make informed and safe food choices for their children,” he says. Yet he acknowledged that explaining the benefits of low or no-calorie sweeteners remains challenging, as consumers are often exposed to conflicting headlines. According to Oger, there is a need to return to the basics of science literacy – clarifying the difference between risk and hazard, and emphasising that correlation does not imply causation.
At the same time, consumer trends are clearly shaping the innovation landscape. Le points out that there is “growing demand from parents and consumers for sweetener-free or clean label drinks for children”, which has become a major driver of product development. Yet he warned that this demand has also “fuelled deceptive marketing and advertising practices, leading to products with inconsistent or misleading claims that can misguide consumers”. The industry therefore faces a dual challenge: meeting consumer expectations while avoiding the pitfalls of overclaiming.
Future directions
Looking ahead, the industry’s response to the SACN guidance will likely determine how children’s beverage categories evolve over the next decade. Oger argued that reversing progress by reverting to higher sugar formulations would be “counterproductive” given the global need to reduce sugar intake, even as scrutiny on sweeteners intensifies. Instead, companies are expected to pursue innovation through alternative strategies, from natural flavour modulation to the use of novel ingredients like prebiotic fibres or newgeneration proteins.
Le highlighted that technological innovations are already under way, including “cross-modal interactions that combine sweetness with aroma” and processes such as enzyme-catalysed hydrolysis or microbial fermentation to create less sugar-intensive products. These developments illustrate how science can move beyond the binary choice of sugar versus sweetener, offering a path to beverages that satisfy taste preferences while supporting healthier diets.
The SACN’s recommendation that younger children should not consume drinks containing sweeteners is more than a public health advisory; it is a signal to the food and beverage industry that the time has come to rethink its approach. Sweeteners remain safe within regulated levels, and they continue to play an important role in helping older children and adults reduce sugar intake. Yet when it comes to shaping the habits of the youngest consumers, precaution and developmental considerations now outweigh convenience.
The future of children’s drinks will therefore depend on the industry’s ability to innovate responsibly, communicate transparently, and align product development with both scientific evidence and parental expectations. By doing so, manufacturers and suppliers can ensure that they not only respond to today’s scrutiny but also build trust in a marketplace where health, safety and taste must coexist.
