A new study of how Acceptable Daily Intake measures are used in research on low-calorie sweeteners amplifies the need to develop “best practices” regarding the use and especially the interpretation of ADIs.

The study, which just appeared in the journal BMC Public Health, reviewed 121 studies, and the findings demonstrate that comparisons of Low- and No-Calorie Sweeteners intake to an ADI have been made in a diverse set of science journals, varying widely in their objectives, approaches and populations of interest.

Although an ADI was generally applied correctly in nutrition research studies, in many cases, the discussion or conclusions sections of papers “diverged from the appropriate interpretation,” according to the authors. One specific concern raised was the use of ADIs for short-term exposures as more robust ADIs are derived from exposures over several life-stages. That is because an ADI is calculated by regulatory agencies and provides an estimate of the amount of a substance that can be consumed daily over a lifetime without presenting an appreciable risk to health.

This work was authored by individuals with expertise in nutrition and toxicology, including from ToxStrategies, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, the US Food and Drug Administration, and the University of Nebraska.

The authors call for “responsible use of the ADI” to provide correct information to consumers and practitioners looking to inform decisions about Low- and No-Calorie Sweetener use in nutritional strategies for health (e.g., reducing intake of added sugars). Approved sweeteners have undergone extensive safety evaluation by the US FDA and are considered safe ingredients in the food supply.

The research was supported by the Institute for the Advancement of Food and Nutrition Sciences, a 501(c)(3) science-focused nonprofit uniquely positioned to mobilize industry, government and academia to drive, fund and lead actionable research. IAFNS elevates food safety and nutrition sciences to advance public health. The organization was founded on the belief that collaboration and the inclusion of diverse perspectives is crucial to credible science that benefits the entire food and beverage ecosystem.