4.7 Article

Sugar Content of Market Beverages and Children's Sugar Intake from Beverages in Beijing, China

Journal

NUTRIENTS
Volume 13, Issue 12, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu13124297

Keywords

sugar; beverages; children; consumption

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found that the sugar content in market beverages in Beijing was generally high, especially in fruit/vegetable juices and beverages. The main sources of sugar intake from beverages among students were fruit/vegetable juices and beverages, protein beverages, and carbonated beverages. Boys, older students, and rural students had higher sugar intake from beverages.
(1) Background: This study aims to find the sugar content of market beverages and estimate the sugar intake from beverages among students in Beijing. (2) Methods: Using snapshotting, we collected the sugar content of beverages through their packages or nutrition labels. Combined with the statistic of student beverage consumption, we estimated students' sugar intake. (3) Results: The median sugar content of total beverages was 9.0 g/100 mL, among which the fruits/vegetable juices and beverages had the highest sugar content (10.0 g/100 mL). Sugar content in most beverages in Beijing was generally higher than the recommendations, and fruit/vegetable juices and beverages exceeded the most. The median of sugar intake from beverages among students was 5.3 g/d, and the main sources were fruit/vegetable juices and beverages, protein beverages and carbonated beverages. Sugar intake from beverages differed according to gender, age and living area. Higher sugar intake was found among boys, older students and rural students. (4) Conclusions: Sugar content in market beverages in Beijing were high. Gender, age and residence were the influencing factors of sugar intake. Targeted measures should be taken to decrease the sugar content in beverages, especially the fruit/vegetable juices and beverages and the sugar intake among students.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available