Sri Lanka sugar-reduction policies have unintentionally fuelled a surge in artificial sweeteners, according to the Institute of Policy Studies, raising concerns over misleading labels, regulatory gaps, and long-term health risks linked to non-sugar sweetener consumption.
Sri Lanka sugar-reduction policies drive rapid growth in non-sugar sweeteners
Sri Lanka sugar-reduction policies aimed at curbing excessive sugar intake have led to an unexpected shift in the beverage industry, with manufacturers increasingly relying on non-sugar sweeteners to reformulate products. A new assessment by the Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka highlights how existing regulations, while effective in lowering sugar content, have created loopholes that allow artificial sweeteners to proliferate with limited oversight.
Sri Lanka introduced a Traffic Light Labelling system to help consumers identify sugar levels in beverages, categorising products as high, medium, or low sugar using red, amber, and green labels. This initiative was paired with a sugar-based excise tax on sugar-sweetened beverages to discourage excessive consumption. While these measures prompted manufacturers to reduce sugar content, IPS notes that many companies responded by substituting sugar with non-sugar sweeteners rather than genuinely improving nutritional quality.
According to the IPS assessment, around 70 percent of green-labelled beverages and nearly half of amber-labelled drinks currently contain non-sugar sweeteners. These products meet the technical criteria for lower sugar classification, yet still rely on artificial ingredients that may pose health risks over time. As a result, consumers may perceive such drinks as healthier choices despite the presence of sweeteners that are not addressed under current policy frameworks.
Global health evidence has raised increasing concerns about long-term consumption of non-sugar sweeteners. The World Health Organization has warned that regular intake of these substances is associated with a higher risk of diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and overall mortality among adults. Research reviewed by the WHO also links higher consumption of artificial sweeteners to increased body weight, obesity, and elevated risks of chronic illnesses. The organisation advises that non-sugar sweeteners should not be promoted for weight control or the prevention of non-communicable diseases, except in specific cases such as diabetes management.
IPS argues that Sri Lanka’s current regulatory environment does not adequately reflect this growing body of evidence. Under the existing front-of-pack labelling system, only sugar content is considered, allowing beverages containing artificial sweeteners to carry favourable green or amber labels. This can mislead consumers and undermine the original intent of sugar-reduction policies, which was to promote healthier dietary choices.
The sugar-sweetened beverage tax similarly excludes non-sugar sweeteners, creating a financial incentive for manufacturers to shift away from sugar without reducing overall sweetness. IPS notes that this policy gap has accelerated the use of artificial sweeteners across the beverage sector, weakening the effectiveness of fiscal measures designed to discourage unhealthy consumption patterns.
International experience offers alternative approaches. Several countries have expanded beverage taxation to include drinks containing artificial sweeteners, recognising that both sugar and non-sugar sweeteners can contribute to unhealthy diets when consumed excessively. Nations such as Chile, France, India, Portugal, and the Philippines have revised tax structures to cover a broader range of sweetened beverages, discouraging reformulation strategies that simply replace sugar with artificial substitutes.
The Philippines, for example, applies a volume-based excise tax to beverages containing either sugar or artificial sweeteners, ensuring that all sweetened drinks are subject to fiscal controls. This approach reduces incentives for manufacturers to exploit regulatory gaps while reinforcing public health objectives.
IPS also highlights front-of-pack warning systems adopted in countries like Mexico, Peru, and Argentina, where labels explicitly flag the presence of artificial sweeteners alongside other nutritional risks. Mexico’s labelling system, based on the Pan American Health Organization nutrient profile model, identifies products containing non-nutritive sweeteners and caffeine, helping consumers make more informed choices.
Drawing on these examples, IPS recommends strengthening Sri Lanka sugar-reduction policies by adopting a more comprehensive regulatory framework. This includes updating labelling standards to clearly disclose the presence of non-sugar sweeteners, expanding beverage taxes to cover all sweetened products, and aligning national policies with international best practices.
The think tank also stresses the importance of public awareness campaigns to improve understanding of artificial sweeteners and their potential health implications. Encouraging unsweetened or minimally processed alternatives, IPS says, would better support long-term dietary improvements.
In addition, IPS calls for restricting the promotion and sale of products containing non-sugar sweeteners in school environments, arguing that early exposure can shape long-term consumption habits. Stronger school food policies could play a key role in protecting children from misleading marketing and unhealthy dietary patterns.
Ultimately, IPS concludes that addressing the rise of artificial sweeteners is essential if Sri Lanka is to reduce the growing burden of diet-related non-communicable diseases. A holistic approach that regulates both sugar and its substitutes would close existing loopholes, reduce consumer confusion, and encourage genuinely healthier reformulation across the food and beverage industry.