4.6 Article

How much sugar is hidden in drinks marketed to children? A survey of fruit juices, juice drinks and smoothies

Journal

BMJ OPEN
Volume 6, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010330

Keywords

PUBLIC HEALTH; SUGAR SWEETENED BEVERAGES; FOOD INDUSTRY; CHILDREN; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Funding

  1. MRC [G0900847] Funding Source: UKRI
  2. Medical Research Council [G0900847] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective To investigate the amount of sugars in fruit juices, juice drinks and smoothies (FJJDS) marketed to children. Design We surveyed the sugars content (per 100ml and standardised 200ml portion) of all FJJDS sold by seven major UK supermarkets (supermarket own and branded products). Only products specifically marketed towards children were included. We excluded sports drinks, iced teas, sugar-sweetened carbonated drinks and cordials as being not specifically marketed towards children. Results We identified 203 fruit juices (n=21), juice drinks (n=158) and smoothies (n=24) marketed to children. Sugars content ranged from 0 to 16g/100ml. The mean sugars content was 7.0g/100ml, but among the 100% fruit juice category, it was 10.7g/100ml. Smoothies (13.0g/100ml) contained the highest amounts of sugars and juice drinks (5.6g/100ml) contained the lowest amount. 117 of the 203 FJJDS surveyed would receive a Food Standards Agency red' colour-coded label for sugars per standardised 200ml serving. Only 63 FJJDS would receive a green' colour-coded label. 85 products contained at least 19g of sugarsa child's entire maximum daily amount of sugars. 57 products contained sugar (sucrose), 65 contained non-caloric sweeteners and five contained both. Seven products contained glucose-fructose syrup. Conclusions The sugars content in FJJDS marketed to children in the UK is unacceptably high. Manufacturers must stop adding unnecessary sugars and calories to their FJJDS.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available