Friday, January 30, 2026

Strengthening Sri Lanka’s SSB Regulations: Addressing the Rise of Non-Sugar Sweeteners

Sri Lanka confronts a mounting public health crisis as non-communicable diseases (NCDs) claim nearly 75% of all deaths nationwide. Research economist Priyanka Jayawardena from the Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka (IPS) highlights a critical gap in the country's sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) regulations that demands immediate attention.

The alarming statistics paint a sobering picture of Sri Lanka's health landscape. Unhealthy dietary patterns, characterized by excessive consumption of sugar, salt, and fats, continue driving the NCD epidemic. Among these dietary concerns, the proliferation of non-sugar sweeteners in beverages presents an emerging challenge that current regulations fail to adequately address.

Current Regulatory Gaps in SSB Control

Sri Lanka's existing SSB regulations primarily target traditional sugar-containing beverages, leaving a significant loophole for products containing alternative sweetening agents. This regulatory blind spot allows manufacturers to circumvent health-focused policies by substituting conventional sugars with artificial sweeteners, stevia, or other non-nutritive alternatives.

The current framework's limitations become apparent when examining market trends. Beverage manufacturers increasingly reformulate products using non-sugar sweeteners while maintaining similar taste profiles and marketing strategies. These products often escape the regulatory scrutiny applied to traditional sugar-sweetened beverages, despite potentially contributing to similar health outcomes.

Jayawardena's research emphasizes that regulatory modernization must keep pace with industry innovations. The existing policy structure, designed for conventional sweetening methods, requires comprehensive updates to address contemporary beverage formulations effectively.

Health Implications of Non-Sugar Sweeteners

Recent scientific evidence suggests that non-sugar sweeteners may not provide the health benefits once assumed. Studies indicate potential links between artificial sweeteners and metabolic disruptions, altered gut microbiota, and glucose intolerance. These findings challenge the notion that simply replacing sugar with alternatives automatically creates healthier beverage options.

The World Health Organization's evolving position on non-nutritive sweeteners reflects growing scientific concern. Their recent guidance questions the long-term safety and efficacy of these substances for weight management and diabetes prevention, areas previously considered beneficial applications.

For Sri Lanka, where diabetes and obesity rates continue climbing, addressing all forms of sweetened beverages becomes crucial for comprehensive NCD prevention. The country's healthcare system, already strained by chronic disease management, cannot afford to overlook emerging dietary risk factors.

Economic Impact of Strengthened Regulations

Implementing comprehensive SSB regulations covering non-sugar sweeteners would generate significant economic implications across multiple sectors. The beverage industry would face reformulation costs and potential market adjustments, while healthcare systems could experience long-term savings through reduced NCD treatment expenses.

Revenue generation through expanded taxation on sweetened beverages, regardless of sweetening method, could provide additional government resources for health promotion initiatives. Countries implementing similar comprehensive approaches have demonstrated successful revenue collection while achieving public health objectives.

Local beverage manufacturers would need adaptation periods and potentially technical assistance to comply with updated regulations. However, these short-term challenges could drive innovation toward genuinely healthier product alternatives, positioning Sri Lankan companies as regional leaders in health-conscious beverage development.

International Best Practices and Lessons

Several countries have successfully implemented comprehensive sweetened beverage policies that address both traditional and alternative sweeteners. Mexico's sugar tax expansion to include artificially sweetened beverages provides valuable insights for Sri Lankan policymakers considering similar measures.

The United Kingdom's Soft Drinks Industry Levy demonstrates how graduated taxation based on sweetener content can incentive reformulation toward healthier alternatives. Their approach considers total sweetening impact rather than focusing solely on specific sweetener types.

Chile's comprehensive food labeling and marketing restrictions cover products with any form of added sweeteners, creating consumer awareness while limiting exposure to potentially harmful products. Their integrated approach combining taxation, labeling, and marketing controls offers a model for comprehensive policy implementation.

Recommendations for Policy Enhancement

Strengthening Sri Lanka's SSB regulations requires multi-faceted policy updates addressing current loopholes. Expanding taxation to cover all sweetened beverages, regardless of sweetening method, would create consistent health incentives across product categories.

Enhanced labeling requirements should mandate clear disclosure of all sweetening agents, enabling informed consumer choices. Marketing restrictions could extend to products containing non-sugar sweeteners, particularly those targeting children and adolescents.

Establishing regular policy review mechanisms would ensure regulations remain current with evolving scientific evidence and industry practices. This adaptive approach prevents future regulatory gaps while maintaining policy effectiveness.

Moving Forward

Sri Lanka's NCD crisis demands immediate, comprehensive action addressing all dietary risk factors. Updating SSB regulations to include non-sugar sweeteners represents a crucial step toward protecting public health while supporting the country's sustainable development goals.

Policymakers must act decisively to close regulatory loopholes that undermine health protection efforts. The cost of inaction—measured in lives lost and healthcare resources consumed—far exceeds the challenges of implementing comprehensive SSB regulations.