4.7 Article

Trends of caffeine intake from food and beverage among Chinese adults: 2004-2018

Journal

FOOD AND CHEMICAL TOXICOLOGY
Volume 173, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fct.2023.113629

Keywords

Caffeine; Caffeine intake; Dietary; Foods consumption; Probabilistic assessment; Beverages

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study examined the caffeine intake of Chinese adults from 2004 to 2018. The average daily caffeine intake was 123 mg for male consumers and 116 mg for female consumers, with traditional tea leaves, coffee, and sodas being the main sources. While most Chinese adults consumed caffeine within the safe level, there has been an increasing trend in caffeine consumption over the past 14 years.
Caffeine is a kind of psychostimulant that naturally exist in foods. The benefits and risks of caffeine depend on the dose. Moreover, the intake of caffeine from dietary sources in China has seldom been assessed. We calculated the dietary caffeine intake of Chinese adult consumers from 2004 to 2018 and analyzed its consumption trends by using data from the China Health and Nutrition Survey and the National Food and Beverage Consumption Survey. Caffeine contents in different dietary items were determined by HPLC. Monte Carlo simulations were applied to estimate caffeine intake. Mann-Kendall trend test and linear regression were used to analyze the trend of caffeine consumption. Among 79,173 individuals, 3972 (5%) of the adult Chinese population consumed caffeine between 2004 and 2018. The average caffeine intake was 123 mg/day for male consumers and 116 mg/ day for female consumers. The median and P75 caffeine intake raised over the 14 years. Traditional tea leaves, coffee and sodas are the main sources of caffeine intake. Our findings indicate that most Chinese adults consumed caffeine within the safe level (400 mg/day), but the caffeine consumption has shown an increasing trend in recent 14 years.

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