Search

Background: Sweeteners and sweetness enhancers (S&SE) are used to replace energy yielding sugars and maintain sweet taste in a wide range of products, but controversy exists about their effects on appetite and endocrine responses in reduced or no added sugar solid foods. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the acute (1 day) and repeated (two-week daily) ingestive effects of 2 S&SE vs. sucrose formulations of biscuit with fruit filling on appetite and endocrine responses in adults with overweight and obesity. Methods: In a randomised crossover trial, 53 healthy adults (33 female, 20 male) with overweight/obesity in England and France consumed biscuits with fruit filling containing 1) sucrose, or reformulated with either 2) Stevia Rebaudioside M (StRebM) or 3) Neotame daily during three, two-week intervention periods with a two-week washout. The primary outcome was composite appetite score defined as [desire to eat + hunger + (100 − fullness) + prospective consumption]/4. Findings: Each formulation elicited a similar reduction in appetite sensations (3-h postprandial net iAUC). Postprandial insulin (2-h iAUC) was lower after Neotame (95% CI (0.093, 0.166); p < 0.001; d = −0.71) and StRebM (95% CI (0.133, 0.205); p < 0.001; d = −1.01) compared to sucrose, and glucose was lower after StRebM (95% CI (0.023, 0.171); p < 0.05; d = −0.39) but not after Neotame (95% CI (−0.007, 0.145); p = 0.074; d = −0.25) compared to sucrose. There were no differences between S&SE or sucrose formulations on ghrelin, glucagon-like peptide 1 or pancreatic polypeptide iAUCs. No clinically meaningful differences between acute vs. two-weeks of daily consumption were found. Interpretation: In conclusion, biscuits reformulated to replace sugar using StRebM or Neotame showed no differences in appetite or endocrine responses, acutely or after a two-week exposure, but can reduce postprandial insulin and glucose response in adults with overweight or obesity. Funding

Project SWEET examined the barriers and facilitators to the use of non-nutritive sweeteners and sweetness enhancers (hereafter "S&SE") alongside potential risks/benefits for health and sustainability. The Beverages trial was a double-blind multi-centre, randomised crossover trial within SWEET evaluating the acute impact of three S&SE blends (plant-based and alternatives) vs. a sucrose control on glycaemic response, food intake, appetite sensations and safety after a carbohydrate-rich breakfast meal. The blends were: mogroside V and stevia RebM; stevia RebA and thaumatin; and sucralose and acesulfame-potassium (ace-K). At each 4 h visit, 60 healthy volunteers (53% male; all with overweight/obesity) consumed a 330 mL beverage with either an S&SE blend (0 kJ) or 8% sucrose (26 g, 442 kJ), shortly followed by a standardised breakfast (∼2600 or 1800 kJ with 77 or 51 g carbohydrates, depending on sex). All blends reduced the 2-h incremental area-under-the-curve (iAUC) for blood insulin (p < 0.001 in mixed-effects models), while the stevia RebA and sucralose blends reduced the glucose iAUC (p < 0.05) compared with sucrose. Post-prandial levels of triglycerides plus hepatic transaminases did not differ across conditions (p > 0.05 for all). Compared with sucrose, there was a 3% increase in LDL-cholesterol after stevia RebA-thaumatin (p < 0.001 in adjusted models); and a 2% decrease in HDL-cholesterol after sucralose-ace-K (p < 0.01). There was an impact of blend on fullness and desire to eat ratings (both p < 0.05) and sucralose-acesulfame K induced higher prospective intake vs sucrose (p < 0.001 in adjusted models), but changes were of a small magnitude and did not translate into energy intake differences over the next 24h. Gastro-intestinal symptoms for all beverages were mostly mild. In general, responses to a carbohydrate-rich meal following consumption of S&SE blends with stevia or sucralose were similar to sucrose.

Urban agriculture can contribute to food security, food system resilience and sustainability at the city level. While studies have examined urban agricultural productivity, we lack systemic knowledge of how agricultural productivity of urban systems compares to conventional agriculture and how productivity varies for different urban spaces (e.g., allotments vs. rooftops vs. indoor farming) and growing systems (e.g., hydroponics vs. soil‐based agriculture). Here, we present a global meta‐analysis that seeks to quantify crop yields of urban agriculture for a broad range of crops and explore differences in yields for distinct urban spaces and growing systems. We found 200 studies reporting urban crop yields, from which 2,062 observations were extracted. Lettuces and chicories were the most studied urban grown crops. We observed high agronomic suitability of urban areas, with urban agricultural yields on par with or greater than global average conventional agricultural yields. “Cucumbers and gherkins” was the category of crops for which differences in yields between urban and conventional agriculture were the greatest (17 kg m−2 cycle−1 vs. 3.8 kg m−2 cycle−1). Some urban spaces and growing systems also had a significant effect on specific crop yields (e.g., tomato yields in hydroponic systems were significantly greater than tomato yields in soil‐based systems). This analysis provides a more robust, globally relevant evidence base on the productivity of urban agriculture that can be used in future research and practice relating to urban agriculture, especially in scaling‐up studies aiming to estimate the self‐sufficiency of cities and towns and their potential to meet local food demand.

As urban areas and land-use constraints grow, there is increasing interest in utilizing urban spaces for food production. Several studies have uncovered significant potential for urban growing to supplement production of fruit and vegetables, focusing on one or two cities as case studies, whilst others have assessed the global scale potential. Here, we provide a national-scale analysis of the horticultural production potential of urban green spaces, which is a relevant scale for agri-food and urban development policy making using Great Britain (GB) as a case study. Urban green spaces available for horticultural production across GB are identified and potential yields quantified based on three production options. The distribution of urban green spaces within 26 urban towns and cities across GB are then examined to understand the productive potential compared to their total extent and populations. Urban green spaces in GB, at their upper limit, have the capacity to support production that is 8× greater than current domestic production of fruit and vegetables. This amounts to 38% of current domestic production and imports combined, or >400% if exotic fruits and vegetables less suited to GB growing conditions are excluded. Most urban green spaces nationally are found to fall within a small number of categories, with private residential gardens and amenity spaces making up the majority of space. By examining towns and cities across GB in further detail, we find that the area of green space does not vary greatly between urban conurbations of different sizes, and all are found to have substantial potential to meet the dietary needs of the local urban population. This study highlights that national policies can be suitably developed to support urban agriculture and that making use of urban green spaces for food production could help to enhance the resilience of the national-scale food system to shocks in import pathways, or disruptions to domestic production and distributio

Sustainably ensuring food security and safety for the urban population is a major challenge. In this perspective, we present the concept of ‘rurbanisation’ (the ruralisation of urban areas through increased urban agriculture) as a holistic strategy to provide a resilient food system. In particular, we focus on the postharvest benefits of urban agriculture for environmentally sustainable food supply chains, enhanced nutritional content of fresh produce and access to fresh, local and seasonal food. However, upscaling current urban agricultural systems requires improvement in current technologies and local infrastructure as well as the transfer of knowledge and skills to new urban farmers. This perspective summarises the main challenges that urban agriculture is currently facing from a postharvest quality and safety point of view, and highlights the research gaps and opportunities for improvements in that area.

Sustainably ensuring food security and safety for the urban population is a major challenge. In this perspective, we present the concept of ‘rurbanisation’ (the ruralisation of urban areas through increased urban agriculture) as a holistic strategy to provide a resilient food system. In particular, we focus on the postharvest benefits of urban agriculture for environmentally sustainable food supply chains, enhanced nutritional content of fresh produce and access to fresh, local and seasonal food. However, upscaling current urban agricultural systems requires improvement in current technologies and local infrastructure as well as the transfer of knowledge and skills to new urban farmers. This perspective summarises the main challenges that urban agriculture is currently facing from a postharvest quality and safety point of view, and highlights the research gaps and opportunities for improvements in that area.

Background/Objectives: Cross-sectional research has demonstrated weight-related stigma and discrimination, however experimental research providing causal evidence of financial-based weight discrimination is lacking. The aim of these preregistered experiments was to examine whether a novel paradigm in which participants attributed financial rewards and punishments could be used to detect weight bias. Subjects/Methods: One-hundred and twenty-one individuals participated in experiment 1 and one-hundred and sixty-six individuals participated in experiment 2. Both studies were conducted online, and participants were provided with biographies of hypothetical individuals in which weight-status was manipulated (normal weight vs. overweight/obesity) before being asked to provide rewards and punishments on their cognitive performance. In experiment 1 (within-participants design) participants observed one individual they believed to be normal weight and one individual they believed to be overweight/have obesity. In experiment 2 (between-participants design) participants observed one individual whilst also being provided with information about food addiction (Food addiction is real + individual with overweight/obesity vs. food addiction is a myth + individual with overweight/obesity vs control + individual with normal weight). Results: In experiment 1, participants punished individuals who were described as having overweight/obesity to a greater extent to individuals who were normal weight (Hedge’s g = −0.21 [95% CI: −0.02 to −0.41], p = 0.026), but there was no effect on rewards. They were also less likely to recommend individuals with overweight/obesity to pass the tasks (X2(1) = 10.05, p = 0.002). In experiment 2, participants rewarded individuals whom they believed were overweight/obese to a lesser extent than normal-weight individuals (g = 0.49 [95% CI: 0.16 to 0.83]. There was no effect on punishment, nor any impact of information regarding food addiction as real vs a myt

INTRODUCTION: Intake of free sugars in European countries is high and attempts to reduce sugar intake have been mostly ineffective. Non-nutritive sweeteners and sweetness enhancers (S&SEs) can maintain sweet taste in the absence of energy, but little is known about the impact of acute and repeated consumption of S&SE in foods on appetite. This study aims to evaluate the effect of acute and repeated consumption of two individual S&SEs and two S&SE blends in semisolid and solid foods on appetite and related behavioural, metabolic and health outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A work package of the SWEET Project; this study consists of five double-blind randomised cross-over trials which will be carried out at five sites across four European countries, aiming to have n=213. Five food matrices will be tested across three formulations (sucrose-sweetened control vs two reformulated products with S&SE blends and no added sugar). Participants (body mass index 25-35 kg/m2; aged 18-60 years) will consume each formulation for 14 days. The primary endpoint is composite appetite score (hunger, inverse of fullness, desire to eat and prospective food consumption) over a 3-hour postprandial incremental area under the curve during clinical investigation days on days 1 and 14. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial has been approved by national ethical committees and will be conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Results will be published in international peer-reviewed open-access scientific journals. Research data from the trial will be deposited in an open-access online research data archive. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04633681.

Overconsumption of free sugars, particularly from sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB), has potential negative health impacts. Implementation of a range of public health strategies is needed to reduce intakes of free sugars, including reducing portion sizes, promoting healthier dietary choices and reformulating foods and beverages. Although low-calorie sweeteners (LCS) are a useful tool for reducing energy intake and control glucose response when consuming sweet foods and drinks, several opinions persist about the adverse health effects of LCS, many of which are based on poor, little or no scientific evidence. This symposium report summarises key messages of the presentations and related discussions delivered at a scientific symposium at the 13th European Nutrition Conference (FENS 2019). These presentations considered the scientific evidence and current recommendations about the use and potential benefits of LCS for human health, with a particular focus on current evidence in relation to body weight and glycaemic control. Many of the studies to date on LCS have focused on low-calorie sweetened beverages (LCSB); however, the psychological and behavioural factors influencing consumer beliefs and consumption of LCSB need to be further explored. Current recommendations for LCS use are described, including the conclusions from a recent expert consensus report identifying the challenges that remain with LCS research. Finally, existing knowledge gaps and future actions are described, as well as two large ongoing research projects: SWITCH and SWEET.

A consensus workshop on low-calorie sweeteners (LCS) was held in November 2018 where seventeen experts (the panel) discussed three themes identified as key to the science and policy of LCS: (1) weight management and glucose control; (2) consumption, safety and perception; (3) nutrition policy. The aims were to identify the reliable facts on LCS, suggest research gaps and propose future actions. The panel agreed that the safety of LCS is demonstrated by a substantial body of evidence reviewed by regulatory experts and current levels of consumption, even for high users, are within agreed safety margins. However, better risk communication is needed. More emphasis is required on the role of LCS in helping individuals reduce their sugar and energy intake, which is a public health priority. Based on reviews of clinical evidence to date, the panel concluded that LCS can be beneficial for weight management when they are used to replace sugar in products consumed in the diet (without energy substitution). The available evidence suggests no grounds for concerns about adverse effects of LCS on sweet preference, appetite or glucose control; indeed, LCS may improve diabetic control and dietary compliance. Regarding effects on the human gut microbiota, data are limited and do not provide adequate evidence that LCS affect gut health at doses relevant to human use. The panel identified research priorities, including collation of the totality of evidence on LCS and body weight control, monitoring and modelling of LCS intakes, impacts on sugar reduction and diet quality and developing effective communication strategies to foster informed choice. There is also a need to reconcile policy discrepancies between organisations and reduce regulatory hurdles that impede low-energy product development and reformulation.

A consensus workshop on low-calorie sweeteners (LCS) was held in November 2018 where seventeen experts (the panel) discussed three themes identified as key to the science and policy of LCS: (1) weight management and glucose control; (2) consumption, safety and perception; (3) nutrition policy. The aims were to identify the reliable facts on LCS, suggest research gaps and propose future actions. The panel agreed that the safety of LCS is demonstrated by a substantial body of evidence reviewed by regulatory experts and current levels of consumption, even for high users, are within agreed safety margins. However, better risk communication is needed. More emphasis is required on the role of LCS in helping individuals reduce their sugar and energy intake, which is a public health priority. Based on reviews of clinical evidence to date, the panel concluded that LCS can be beneficial for weight management when they are used to replace sugar in products consumed in the diet (without energy substitution). The available evidence suggests no grounds for concerns about adverse effects of LCS on sweet preference, appetite or glucose control; indeed, LCS may improve diabetic control and dietary compliance. Regarding effects on the human gut microbiota, data are limited and do not provide adequate evidence that LCS affect gut health at doses relevant to human use. The panel identified research priorities, including collation of the totality of evidence on LCS and body weight control, monitoring and modelling of LCS intakes, impacts on sugar reduction and diet quality and developing effective communication strategies to foster informed choice. There is also a need to reconcile policy discrepancies between organisations and reduce regulatory hurdles that impede low-energy product development and reformulation.

OBJECTIVES: Bariatric surgery is an effective weight loss tool, but an under-communicated side effect may include the increased risk for alcohol problems. Few studies have examined contributors towards alcohol problems following surgery using a qualitative approach. Therefore, the current study aimed to generate insight informed by participants with problematic alcohol use following bariatric surgery, in comparison with participants without. METHODS: Participants (14; females, n = 9; males, n = 5) completed semi-structured interviews using questions relating to alcohol use, relationship to food, support and surgical experiences. Thematic analysis was conducted to provide insight into the factors which influenced drinking behaviours that participants engaged in following bariatric surgery, and motivations for drinking or limiting alcohol. RESULTS: Five core themes were identified between both participants with and without problematic alcohol use: (1) drinking motivations, (2) self-image, (3) impact of restriction on eating behaviour, (4) support needs and (5) surgical preparedness. A sixth core theme ("resilience") was identified specifically amongst participants without problematic alcohol use. Divergent experiences, cognitions and behaviours formed sub-themes within the five core themes and highlighted the differences between participants with and without problematic alcohol use within the core themes. CONCLUSION: This study is the first to qualitatively assess themes relating to the development of problematic alcohol use after bariatric surgery while additionally using a comparison group without problematic alcohol use. The findings highlight key features which contribute to problematic alcohol use, as well as experiences and cognitions that may be helpful in preventing this phenomenon in bariatric populations.

Objective: Lower socioeconomic status is robustly associated with obesity; however, the underpinning psychological mechanisms remain unclear. The current study sought to determine whether the relationship between lower socioeconomic status and obesity is explained by psychological distress and subsequent emotional eating as a coping strategy. It also examined whether psychological resilience plays a protective role in this pathway. Methods: Participants (N = 150) from a range of socioeconomic backgrounds completed questionnaire measures of psychological distress, emotional eating, and resilience. They reported their income and education level as an indicator of socioeconomic status and their height and weight in order to calculate BMI. Results: There was a significant indirect effect of socioeconomic status on BMI via psychological distress and emotional eating; specifically, lower socioeconomic status was associated with higher distress, higher distress was associated with higher emotional eating, and higher emotional eating was associated with higher BMI (b [SE] = −0.02 [0.01]; 95% CI: −0.04 to −0.01). However, resilience was not a significant moderator of this association. Conclusions: Psychological distress and subsequent emotional eating represent a serial pathway that links lower socioeconomic status with obesity. Targeting these maladaptive coping behaviors may be one strategy to reduce obesity in low-income populations. © 2019 The Authors. Obesity published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of The Obesity Society (TOS)