Featured Post from Aston University

Two glasses of wine might add more sugar to your diet than eating a doughnut

Mar 7, 2022

4 min

Soft drinks have been the focus of the UK government’s attempts to curb people’s sugar intake in recent years, but the same approach has not yet been applied to the sugar content in alcoholic drinks.




The government introduced “sugar taxes” on soft drinks in 2018, meaning manufacturers are charged a levy of up to 24p per litre of drink if it contains eight grams of sugar per 100 millilitres. This was done in order to attempt to reduce the public’s sugar intake in light of increases in childhood obesity.


But a new report from Alcohol Health Alliance UK has suggested that just two glasses of wine contains enough sugar to meet the maximum recommended daily intake level – even more than a glazed doughnut.


The report found that some bottles of wine contain as much as 59 grams of sugar per bottle. A standard bottle of wine contains 750 millilitres, which is equivalent to three large glasses of wine. This means in some cases a single large glass of wine can contain just under 20 grams of sugar, almost twice the sugar content of that glazed doughnut. So, when it comes to alcoholic drinks, how much sugar do they contain?


Consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks has been linked to an increased risk of weight gain and obesity, and associated conditions such as type 2 diabetes. Most research into sugary drinks has focused on soft drinks, such as colas. Alcohol, or ethanol to give it it’s proper name, is itself calorific.


Alcohol is second only to fats in terms of its calorie content per gram. On top of this potentially significant calorie content is the sugar that is contained in many alcoholic drinks. This includes the non-fermented starches and sugars found in beers and wines, or sugars added to some drinks such as cocktails or mixers to add flavour. It is unsurprising therefore that alcohol consumption has been associated with weight gain.


Sugar levels in cocktails

Surveys have reported that alcoholic drinks account for 10% of daily intake of added sugar in the UK for 29 to 64-year-olds, and 6% for the over 65s. This difference may be explained by the alcoholic drinks chosen by these different age groups.


Near the top of the list of sugary drinks is likely to be the recent phenomenon of pre-made cocktails in a can, with some containing a staggering 49 grams of sugar per serving. Other more traditional cocktails also fare poorly when scrutinised for sugar content, a summer fruit cup cocktail, for example, may contain more than 25g of sugar per serving. This figure could be higher at home, depending on who makes the drink, and what is considered a serving. Having several of these cocktails won’t just make you merry, but will also provide more sugar than eating several chocolate bars.


Wine can vary dramatically in sugar content, with the seemingly healthier lower strength alcohol wines often having more sugar and therefore not necessarily being healthier. In general, dry wines or red wines generally have lower sugar levels.


For those of us who enjoy beers and ciders, these drinks can contain even more sugar per serving than wine. A pint of cider, for example, contains more than 25g of sugar, with some ciders containing an eye watering 46g of sugar per serving.


Because spirits such as gin, vodka, whisky and rum are highly distilled their sugar content should be negligible. Without mixers, these drinks are clearly the healthiest in terms of both sugar and calorie content. The mixers they come with can however be sugar-sweetened so if you want to avoid sugar, having your gin neat or on the rocks is the best way forward.


Better labelling

It is clear that more can be done to alert people to the sugar content of alcoholic drinks. The first step would be to mandate that alcohol producers accurately label their products, not just with alcohol content by volume, but also sugar and calorie content, so consumers can make informed choices. Equally, altering the sugar levy to target alcoholic drinks more specifically would likely cause drinks manufacturers to alter their recipes to have less sugar content.


The levy on soft drinks has shown this can work, with significant reductions in consumption of sugar-sweetened non-alcoholic drinks since 2018. The government claimed that the tax on soft drinks resulted in more than 50% of manufacturers reducing sugar content in drinks between March 2016, when it was announced, and its introduction in 2018.


In the UK more than 20% of people regularly drink alcohol at levels that increase their health risk. People should also be aware of the less obvious risks posed by drinking alcohol, including the sugar content, and take this into account when choosing their tipple, especially if they are trying to lose weight.

You might also like...

Check out some other posts from Aston University

4 min

People still trust scientists: Aston University psychologists contribute to largest post-pandemic study on public trust

Researchers looked at trust in scientists in 68 countries and found relatively high levels of trust everywhere The TISP Many Labs study of 71,922 people included those living in under-researched nations of the Global South The majority of survey participants believe that scientists should be more involved in society and policymaking. Public trust in scientists is still high, according to a survey carried out in 68 countries by an international team of 241 researchers, led by Dr Viktoria Cologna (Harvard University, ETH Zurich) and Dr Niels Mede (University of Zurich). The study found no evidence of the oft-repeated claim of a crisis of trust in science. The team, which included Aston University School of Psychology’s Dr James Reynolds and Dr Charlotte Pennington, also found that the majority of survey participants believed that scientists should be more involved in society and policymaking. This study is the result of the Trust in Science and Science-Related Populism (TISP) Many Labs study, a collaborative effort that allowed the authors to survey 71,922 people in 68 countries, including many under-researched countries in the ‘Global South’. For the first time since the COVID-19 pandemic, the study provides global, representative survey data on the populations and regions of the world in which researchers are perceived to be most trustworthy, the extent to which they should engage with the public and whether science is prioritising important research issues. Dr Mede said: “The study is the most comprehensive post-pandemic snapshot of trust in scientists, societal expectations of their involvement in society and policymaking and public views on research priorities.” Across 68 countries, the study finds that the majority of the public has a relatively high level of trust in scientists (mean trust level = 3.62, on a scale of 1 = very low trust to 5 = very high trust). The majority of respondents also perceive scientists as qualified (78%), honest (57%) and concerned about people’s wellbeing (56%). However, the results also reveal some areas of concern. Globally, less than half of respondents (42%) believe that scientists pay attention to the views of others. Additionally, many people felt that the priorities of science are not always well-aligned with their own priorities. The researchers call upon scientists to take the results seriously and find ways to be more receptive to feedback and more open to dialogue. The findings confirm the results of previous studies that show significant differences between countries and population groups. In particular, people with right-wing political views in Western countries tend to have less trust in scientists than those with left-wing views. This suggests that attitudes toward science tend to polarise along political lines. In most countries, however, political orientation and trust in scientists were not related. A majority of respondents want science to play an active role in society and policymaking. Globally, 83% of respondents believe that scientists should communicate with the public about science, providing an impetus for increased science communication efforts. Only a minority (23%) believe that scientists should not actively advocate for specific policies. 52% believe that scientists should be more involved in the policymaking process. Participants gave high priority to research to improve public health, solve energy problems and reduce poverty. On the other hand, research to develop defence and military technology was given a lower priority. In fact, participants explicitly believe that science is prioritising the development of defence and military technology more than they would like, highlighting a potential misalignment between public and scientific priorities. Dr Cologna said: “Our results show that most people in most countries have relatively high trust in scientists and want them to play an active role in society and policymaking”. Dr Reynolds, a senior lecturer at Aston University School of Psychology, said: “This research demonstrates that people from all around the globe still have high trust in science and want scientists involved in policymaking. When we face great challenges, such as threats to public health or energy crises, the public recognise the importance that scientists can play and want us involved. This is also true of the UK where levels of public trust in science is one of the highest globally.” Dr Pennington, a senior lecturer at Aston University School of Psychology, said: “This project showcases the importance and power of big team science to answer fundamental questions about human behaviour. By pooling our expertise and resources, we were able to reach over 70,000 people and improve sample diversity and representation by recruiting from 68 countries. Overall, the study resulted in an optimistic finding – that people generally trust scientists and agree that they should engage more in society and policymaking. Such trust is important because it allows people to make research-informed decisions about their own lives.” Find out more about the research in Nature Human Behaviour by visiting https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-024-02090-5.

4 min

Aston University-led project finds simple ways to improve the wellbeing of paediatric critical care staff

The Staff Wellbeing (SWell) project was carried out in conjunction with Birmingham Children’s Hospital and NHS England Paediatric critical care (PCC) staff experience high levels of moral distress, post-traumatic stress disorder and burnout Two simple, low-resource wellbeing sessions can be delivered by staff for staff without specialist training. The Staff Wellbeing (SWell) project, led by Aston University researchers in collaboration with Birmingham Children’s Hospital and NHS England, has developed two simple, easy-to-deliver sessions to improve the wellbeing of staff in paediatric critical care (PCC) units in UK hospitals. PCC staff are known to experience high levels of moral distress, symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and burnout, but often feel little is offered to help them with their mental health. The SWell team at Aston University, led by Professor Rachel Shaw from the Institute of Health and Neurodevelopment, realised following a literature review that there are no existing, evidence-based interventions specifically designed to improve PCC staff wellbeing. Initial work by SWell identified the ‘active ingredients’ likely to create successful intervention designs. Together with a team from NHS England, the Aston University researchers set up the SWell Collaborative Project: Interventions for Staff Wellbeing in Paediatric Critical Care, in PCC units across England and Scotland. The aim of the project was to determine the feasibility and acceptability of implementing wellbeing interventions for staff working in PCC in UK hospitals. In total, 14 of the 28 UK PCC units were involved. One hundred and four intervention sessions were run, attended by 573 individuals. Professor Shaw said: “The significance of healthcare staff wellbeing was brought to the surface during the COVID-19 pandemic, but it’s a problem that has existed far longer than that. As far as we could see researchers had focused on measuring the extent of the problem rather than coming up with possible solutions. The SWell project was initiated to understand the challenges to wellbeing when working in paediatric critical care, to determine what staff in that high-pressure environment need, and what could actually work day-to-day to make a difference. Seeing PCC staff across half the paediatric critical care units in the UK show such enthusiasm and commitment to make the SWell interventions a success has been one of the proudest experiences in my academic career to date.” The two wellbeing sessions tested are low-resource and low-intensity, and can be delivered by staff for staff without any specialist qualifications. In the session ‘Wellbeing Images’, a small group of staff is shown images representing wellbeing, with a facilitated discussion using appreciative inquiry - a way of structuring discussions to create positive change in a system or situation by focusing on what works well, rather than what is wrong. In the ‘Mad-Sad-Glad’ session, another small group reflective session, participants explore what makes them feel mad, sad and glad, and identify positive actions to resolve any issues raised. The key ingredients in both sessions are social support – providing a psychologically safe space where staff can share their sensitive experiences and emotions without judgement, providing support for each other; self-belief – boosting staff’s self-confidence and ability to identify and express their emotions in response to work; and feedback and monitoring – encouraging staff to monitor what increases their stress, when they experience challenging emotions, and what might help boost their wellbeing in those scenarios. Feedback from staff both running and participating in the SWell interventions was very positive, with high satisfaction and feasibility ratings. Participants like that the session facilitated open and honest discussions, provided opportunities to connect with colleagues and offered opportunities for generating solutions and support. One hospital staff member responsible for delivering the sessions said: “Our staff engaged really well, and it created a buzz around the unit with members of the team asking if they could be ‘swelled' on shift. A really positive experience and we are keeping it as part of our staff wellbeing package.” The team concluded that even on busy PCC units, it is feasible to deliver SWell sessions. In addition, following the sessions, staff wellbeing and depression scores improved, indicating their likely positive impact on staff. Further evaluations are needed to determine whether positive changes can be sustained over time following the SWell sessions. The work was funded by Aston University Proof of Concept Fund and NHS England. Donna Austin, an advanced critical care practitioner at University Hospital Southampton paediatric intensive care unit, said: “We were relatively new to implementing wellbeing initiatives, but we recognised the need for measures to be put in place for an improvement in staff wellbeing, as staff had described burnout, stress and poor mood. SWell has enabled our unit to become more acutely aware of the needs of the workforce and adapt what we deliver to suit the needs of the staff where possible. Staff morale and retention has been the greatest outcomes from us participating in the SWell study and ongoing SWell related interventions.” Read the paper about the SWell interventions in the journal Nursing in Critical Care at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nicc.13228. For more information about SWell, visit the website.

2 min

Expert comment available - the Government's announcement for the AI Opportunities Action Plan

Expert comment is available on the the Government's announcement for the AI Opportunities Action Plan in which it is aims to roll out AI across the UK. In a speech setting out the government's plans to use AI across the UK to boost growth and deliver services more efficiently, the Prime Minister said the government had a responsibility to make AI "work for working people". The government claims that the AI Opportunities Action Plan is backed by leading tech firms, some of which have committed £14bn towards various projects, creating 13,250 jobs. It includes plans for growth zones where development will be focused, and the technology will be used to help tackle issues such as potholes. Expert comment: "The plan is a necessary step in the right direction with appropriate investment. It should be coupled with a major training programme at business and public levels to bridge the skill gap and develop essential capabilities. "It is important to specify the role that the higher education sector will play in the delivery of such a plan particularly with regards to innovation and knowledge transfer partnerships. "The government used stated that the technology will be used to help tackle issues such as potholes, however AI should be used not only in the detection of potholes, but also in their prediction. Using predictive analytics would significantly reduce the number of cameras that must be deployed to monitor road surface conditions up and down the country." Professor Abdul Hamid Sadka, Professor of Visual Media Technologies, Director, The Sir Peter Rigby Digital Futures Institute, Aston University For further details contact Nicola Jones, Head of Press & Communications (interim) on (+44) 7825 342091 or email: n.jones6@aston.ac.uk

View all posts
Powered by