Analytical Report - Fruit lollies

Note: The levels of sugar in food that represent a "lot" and a "little" have been changed since this report was completed.

Fruit ice lollies

Introduction

Fruit ice lollies are popular in summer months particularly with young children. Traditionally they are a frozen soft drink, but product innovation means many are more complex e.g. an ice cream core covered by a fruit sorbet. They may contain fruit or may simply have a fruit flavour. Some contain artificial colours; most contain a significant amount of sugar and the remainder contain artificial sweeteners. Unlike most other foods fruit lollies sold individually are not required to be labelled with a date mark e.g. best before date.

Thirty seven samples were submitted for analysis. They were purchased from supermarkets, convenience stores and smaller grocers. The analysis looked at the sugar content of the products; the presence, and if necessary the amount of, artificial colours, and an estimation of fruit content for any claims.

Summary of results

Eleven of the samples were reported as unsatisfactory for minor labelling matters. One sample used the term ‘flavoured’ but the product did not contain any flavour from the fruit and should therefore have been described as fruit flavour. Another claimed “Restricted amount of sugar” but this by itself is meaningless. There was a further claim “14% less sugar” but this does not qualify the product to be called “reduced sugar”.

Five samples declared the presence of artificial colours, and these were all present at a satisfactory level.

The amount of total sugars in the products ranged from <I.0g per 100g to 29.3 g per 100g. The average sugar content was 17.2g. Food Standards Agency advice is that

10g sugars or more per 100g is A LOT of sugar
2g sugars or less per 100g is A LITTLE sugar

Thirty three of the products tested exceeded the 10g level and should therefore be considered as containing a lot of sugar. Only one product could be regarded as containing a little sugar. The high sugar content may encourage tooth decay particularly in children. As lollies take longer to consume than drinks, the teeth have a longer contact time with sugar. Sucking a lolly also means that more teeth surfaces come into contact with the sugars than perhaps drinking a juice drink through a straw, where the drink goes to the back of the mouth and is then swallowed.

The fruit content of products containing fruit may be estimated from the phosphorus and potassium content. However, the potassium and phosphorus contents of a fruit are not fixed but rather lie within a range, depending on the variety, growing conditions and weather. Therefore this immediately limits the accuracy of any calculation. In addition, if more than one fruit is used, the difficulties are compounded. Also, many products include other sources of potassium and phosphorus, for example preservatives and emulsifiers and buffers. However, despite these reservations, the estimation of potassium and phosphorus can often confirm or deny the claims made on a product. None of the ice lollies could be criticised in this respect.

Thirteen lollies contained no fruit juice, only “flavouring”. The declared fruit content ranged from 1% to 85%. Six declared less than than 10%, which might be considered a negligible amount and should not be regarded as a source of one portion of fruit. On the other hand, four declared 79% or more, giving a genuine fruit lolly. This was no doubt reflected in the cost.

Report Date: December 2006