6. 5. 91 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 120/9 
mote energy efficiency it is unlikely that sufficient action 
will be taken by Member States and users to develop 
this programme. 
Done at Brussels, 20 March 1991. 
1. Background 
1.1. Sweeteners are classed as food additives and fall 
into two categories: 
a) intense sweeteners like saccharin in use for over 
100 years, which are used in very small amounts; 
b) bulk sweeteners (among them sorbitol and xylitol, 
naturally present in many fruits), which are used in 
larger amounts. 
1.2. They provide a sweet taste while supplying no 
or fewer calories than the sugars which are the main 
sweetening agent in food. Moreover they do not support 
the growth of many bacteria. This means they can help 
in reducing caries (a bacterial disease) and they can also 
reduce deterioration due to bacteria in some foods. 
(]) O] No C 242, 27. 9. 1990, p. 4. The Committee therefore would suggest that the 
explanatory memorandum should also be published 
either as a part of the Decision or as an Annex. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francois STAEDELIN 
Finally they have particular application in foods for 
diabetics. 
1.3. There has been an increasing consumer demand 
for foods with sweeteners, particularly: 
a) foods which taste good but which supply fewer 
calories; 
b) sweet but carbohydrate-free products which are less 
prone to cause caries. 
1.4. As a result of this consumer demand, the pro­
ducers have developed new sweeteners, often better 
adapted for a given food and have developed more 
foods with high taste acceptance containing sweeteners. 
1.5. Though driven by consumer demand, the wider 
use of sweeteners has also been promoted by medical Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive on sweeteners for use in foodstuffs (*) 
(91/C 120/03) 
On 2 October 1990 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Article 100A of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Protection of the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Affairs, which 
was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 
5 March 1991. The Rapporteur was Mr Gardner. 
At its 285th plenary session (meeting of 20 March 1991) the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted unanimously the following Opinion. 
No C 120/10 Official Journal of the European Communities 6. 5. 91 
advice, such as that given in government reports in 
Germany (*) and in the UK (2). The latter recommended 
that 'food manufacturers should produce low sugar or 
sugar-free alternatives to existing sugar-rich products, 
particularly those aimed at consumption by children'. 
This, of course, needs to be read in conjunction with 
the advice of the SCF (Scientific Committee of Food) 
to the effect that 'polyols (i.e. bulk sweeteners) should 
not be used in foods specially prepared for infants and 
young children up to 3 years of age' (3). 
2. General comments 
2.1. Given the above and given the considerable vari­
ation in national laws, a Directive is necessary for the 
free circulation of food in the market without frontiers. 
The Commission has done a very creditable job with 
this proposal which is approved, subject to the com­
ments below. 
2.2. Since this proposal is for a sub-directive of 
Directive 89/107/EEC, it deals only with the sweeteners 
themselves and not with labelling provisions. The Com­
mittee therefore approves the explanatory memor­
andum which states 'The Commission is currently 
examining the need for further mandatory labelling of 
certain sweeteners and foodstuffs containing sweet­
eners' and urges the Commission to complete this exam­
ination quickly. The Committee also notes that the 
proposal does not deal with table top sweeteners, since 
these are not additives in foods. 
2.2.1. Sweeteners of course have to be shown in the 
ingredient list. However, some Member States require 
advisory labelling for bulk sweeteners in view of poten­
tial laxative effects. Harmonization of this labelling is 
desirable. It is equally for labelling (currently voluntary 
but universally observed) to emphasise the presence of 
aspartame in products for phenylketonurea sufferers. 
(*) Verordnung zur Anderung der Zusatsstoff, Zulassungs-
verordnung, Begriindung zu Artikel 1, Nummer 4, Bonn, 
1989. 
(2) 'Dietary sugars and human disease', Chief Medical Officer's 
Committee on medical aspects of food policy, HMSO, Lon­
don, 1989. 
(3) Report of the SCF on sweeteners, 1984 and 1987. 2.3. Further the Commission should speed up its 
proposals on claims including those for reduced energy. 
It would be helpful to have these in action at the same 
time as this proposal. 
2.4. The consumption of sweeteners should be 
monitored at regular intervals throughout the EC by 
soundly based market surveys such as the one carried 
out in one Member State (see paragraph 3.4 below). 
Provision for this should be made in this proposal. A 
particular example is Neohesperedine DC, a product 
made from Seville oranges, production of which has 
started fairly recently. As it is new, it had not found 
many applications when the proposal was drawn up. 
2.5. There should be provision to amend the Annex 
in line with changes in consumer demand or the results 
of these market surveys, particularly in relation to the 
acceptable daily intakes (ADI). 
2.5.1. To do this, the framework directive 89/107/ 
EEC would need to be amended. The same problem 
will arise with further sub-directives. We therefore sug­
gest the following solution: 
2.5.2. Such changes could be made by way of Com­
mission Directive subject to the procedure set out in 
Article 11 of Directive 89/107/EEC. 
2.5.3. At the moment, changes to the Annex can only 
be adopted under Article 5 of Directive 89/107/EEC in 
accordance with Article 100A of the Treaty. Amend­
ments would, therefore, be needed to Article 5 of Direc­
tive 89/107/EEC to permit changes to all lists of author­
ized additive to be adopted in accordance with Article 
11. 
2.5.4. The Committee therefore approves the fact 
that the Commission is currently studying the whole 
subject of implementing procedures in the light of the 
forthcoming revision of the Treaty of Rome. 
2.6. Finally, the Committee feels strongly that in 
addition to providing the foods noted in paragraph 
1.5 much more should be done in furthering dietary 
nutritional education and good dental hygiene for all 
levels and by all appropriate means. In particular it 
urges Member States to put into practice much more 
effectively the Council of Minister's Resolution of May 
1986 on consumer education in primary and secondary 
schools, where nutritional education is specifically 
mentioned. 
6. 5. 91 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 120/11 
3. Detailed comments 
3.1. Final recital 
The term 'sugar-free' should be replaced by 'without 
added sugars'. Also the recital should be re-worded so 
that energy reduction, increases in shelf life and 
increased consumer choice are all acknowledged as 
possible benefits from use of sweeteners. 
3.2. Article 7 
The second indent should be changed to read: 
'— prohibit trade in products not conforming to 
this Directive two years after its publication, or 
after expiry of the 'best before' date on the pack, 
whichever is the later.' 
This is necessary to avoid destroying perfectly sound 
products already in shops. 
3.3. Annex 
The Annex gives the products in which sweeteners can 
be used and the amounts which will be permitted. 
3.3.1. The Annex contains a major presentational 
problem. Many items contain a 'sugar-free'-category 
which is defined in a footnote as 'without any added 
mono- and disaccharide'. This nomenclature is confus­
ing, particularly in view of any future labelling impli­
cations and the possible addition of sweetening foods 
such as concentrated fruit juices. Also honey which is 
already excluded in Article 1.3 of the Commission's 
proposal. Therefore, in the interests both of clarity and 
of scientific fact: the words 'sugar-free' throughout 
should be changed to 'without any added sugars'. 
Further the footnote should be changed to read: 
'Without added sugars means: without added 
mono-, oligo- and disaccharides and foodstuffs used 
for sweetening.' 
3.3.2. There should be a provision for diabetic foods 
throughout this Annex, since these are not necessarily 
sugar-free or energy-reduced. Diabetic foods can be 
based on fructose (a sugar), sugar alcohols and intense 
sweeteners or mixtures thereof and thus may be neither 
energy reduced or without added sugars. 
The Committee suggests the following solution: dia­
betic foods can contain the appropriate amount of sweetener given in the table, without their having to be 
energy-reduced or without added sugars. 
3.3.3. The quantities of sweeteners and the products 
in which they are used should be governed by two 
precepts: 
a) to ensure that consumption is within the ADI set 
bytheSCF^and 
b) within that, to allow the amounts necessary to give 
sugar free or energy-reduced foods with high-taste 
acceptance. 
3.4. Concerning a), the Commission unfortunately 
had no EEC-wide consumption data to justify its fig­
ures. There is, however, evidence from official sources, 
namely a report by the UK government (2). In the UK 
there are quantitative limits only on soft drinks, other­
wise sweeteners can be used QS {quantum satis: the 
amount necessary to achieve the required effect by good 
manufacturing practice). 
Yet this report which was based on an extensive survey 
of sweetener consumption, concluded that at the time 
of the survey in 1987/1988 sweeteners in food did not 
cause the ADI to be exceeded. The only exception was 
a few extreme diabetic consumers who exceeded the 
ADI for saccharin due to their consumption of table-
top sweeteners. However, since then, the report notes, 
saccharin consumption has gone down as other sweet­
eners are more widely used instead. 
Unless there is a danger of exceeding the ADI for 
extended periods therefore, the levels should be those 
found necessary by practical experience to give the right 
consumer preference in the finished product. These 
should be such as to give roughly the equivalent sweet­
ness levels as the sugar which is replaced. A guide to 
equivalent sweetness of sweeteners has been published 
bytheSCF(3). 
3.4.1. Energy-reduced products which contain some 
sugars need less sweetener than ones without added 
sugars. In some cases, therefore, the maximum permit-
(*) Report of the SCF on sweeteners, 1984 and 1987. 
(2) Food Surveillance Paper n° 29, Ministry of Agriculture, Fishe­
ries and Food, HMSO, London, 1990. 
(3) Report of the SCF on sweeteners, 1984. 
No C 120/12 Official Journal of the European Communities 6. 5. 91 
ted sweetener level should be reduced for energy-
reduced products, in others it should be increased for 
foods without added sugars. 
3.5. Some products where sweeteners are currently 
used have been omitted from the Annex. These foods 
should be added, especially given the medical advice 
cited in paragraph 1.5. 
3.6. In some cases sweeteners are only proposed for 
'sugar free' products. Again, given paragraph 1.5, these 
foods should be changed to 'energy reduced or without 
added sugars'. 
3.7. In some cases the categories of foods are not 
clear enough to ensure uniform reflection of the direc­
tive in 12 national legislations. 
3.8. The following changes in the Annex are there­
fore necessary: 
3.8.1. Foods where sweeteners are used and which 
have been omitted: 
3.8.1.1. Low alcohol (not more than 1.2%) or alcoh­
ol-free beers: Aspartame 200 mg/1. 
3.8.1.2. Savoury snack products: 
— Acesulfame K 200 mg/kg (350 mg/kg), 
— Aspartame 200 mg/kg (500 mg/kg), 
— Cyclamates 250 mg/kg, 
— Saccharin 100 mg/kg. 
NB: Given the current difficulties of amending this 
Directive in the light of changes in consumer 
demand, the figures in brackets seem more likely 
to meet requirements. 
3.8.1.3. Soups: Saccharin: 110 mg/kg. 
Acesulfame K and Cyclamates should be permitted at 
similar sweetening powers. 
3.8.1.4. Vitamin supplements: 
The Committee is not clear whether these should be 
classed as foods. However, if they are foods, they need 
to be included with the necessary sweetener levels. 
3.8.2. Categories which need changing or clarifying: 
3.8.2.1. Confectionery 
As written, this section is a confusing mixture of confec­
tionery and fine bakery wares. Thus Efloblaten are fine bakery wares and not confectionery and the same 
applies to 'starch-based confectionery', i.e. wafers, bis­
cuits, etc. which are often fine bakery in national legis­
lation. These need transferring to an other section. Also 
the first two items in the present confectionery section 
have the same levels of use and should be combined. 
Finaly, energy-reduced chewing gum has been omitted. 
The section should therefore be changed as follows: 
Confectionery: 
— Confectionery, energy-reduced or without added 
sugars, 
— Cocoa, dairy, nut or fat-based spreads, energy 
reduced or without added mono- and disaccharide, 
— Chewing gum, energy-reduced or without added 
sugars. 
(Note: The term 'sandwich spread' in the proposal 
means a savoury spread. The French term pate a tartiner 
is the correct one. Also chewing-gum would be better 
categorized as 'chewing-gum with or without added 
sugars'). 
3.8.2.2. Fine bakery wares 
This should contain the former 'starch based confec­
tionery' and Efloblaten both without change in level 
though the Efioblaten should be translated into national 
languages. Taking saccharin as an example, this would 
give: 
Fine bakery wares: 
— Wafers, biscuits, energy-reduced or without added 
sugars: 300 mg/kg, 
— Fine bakery wares for special nutritional uses: 
170 mg/kg, 
— Rice paper and communion wafers (Efioblaten): 
800 mg/kg. 
3.8.2.3. Special diets 
This sections does not apply to normal foods. These 
products come under the Directive 89/398/EEC on 
foodstuffs intended for particular nutritional uses and 
the detailed sub-Directives under this which the Com­
mission has to establish. The present proposal has to 
make clear that these are 89/398/EEC products, if only 
to avoid problems when it is transposed into certain 
national legislations. In addition, follow up and wean­
ing foods should be specifically excluded. 
6. 5. 91 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 120/13 
Finally diabetic foods and if appropriate vitamin sup­
plements need to be added (see paragraph 3.8.1.4). 
3.8.3. Categories where maximum levels need 
changing: 
In some cases the maxima proposed do not correspond 
to those found to give the right consumer preference 
in practice in Member States, while meeting the ADI 
requirements. In other cases the use of certain sweet­
eners is proposed which are technically not suitable for 
the particular product. These include: 
3.8.3.1. Non-alcoholic drinks: 
In practice, different amounts of sweeteners are needed 
for products with and without added sugars. At the 
risk of complicating the Directive it would be best to 
split the sub-groups into energy-reduced drinks and 
drinks without added sugars, the maximum sweetener 
levels being: 
Energy-reduced drinks: 
— Acesulfame K 350 mg/1, 
— Aspartame 600 mg/1, 
— Cyclamates 400 mg/1, 
— Saccharin 80 mg/1. 
Drinks without added sugars: 
— Acesulfame K 450 mg/1, 
— Aspartame 750 mg/1, 
— Cyclamates 600 mg/1, 
— Saccharin 150 mg/1. 
On the other hand, Neohesperidine DC could be deleted 
from both categories. 
3.8.3.2. Desserts: 
The amounts should be amended in line with actual 
requirements found in practice. 
Done at Brussels, 20 March 1991. 3.8.3.3. Chewing gum: 
This category should be split into gums with and gums 
without added sugars in line with existing requirements. 
For products without added sugars, the current 
maximum levels in the EC are: 
— Acesulfame K: 6 000 mg/kg, 
— Aspartame: 5 500 mg/kg, 
— Cyclamates: 3 000 mg/kg, 
— Saccharin: 2 000 mg/kg, 
— Thaumatin: 200 mg/kg, 
— Neohesperidine DC: 400 mg/kg. 
Some of these are legislative maxima while others are 
the maximum levels found by practical experience in 
countries such as Ireland and the UK where the legis­
lation is for QS. The only official usage study (from 
the IK; see point 3.4) shows no problems with the ADI 
at these current usage levels. In the absence of any data 
to counter the results of this study, the directive should 
incorporate the above figures. 
However, if more than one sweetener is used, a pro 
rata reduction should be applied, e.g. if a gum contains 
3 000 mg/kg Acesulfame K, only 1 000 mg/kg Saccharin 
could be used. 
Equally, lower levels should apply for products with 
added sugars. 
3.8.3.4. Cider and perry: 
Again Neohesperidine DC could be deleted while the 
level of Saccharin should be changed to 120 mg/1. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francois STAEDELIN