Market Gaps in Beverage Labeling
A new study of soft and energy drinks sold in Morocco found that products marketed as zero-sugar can contain as much as 5.81 grams of simple sugar per 100 milliliters. This result points to a pattern researchers traced across the market. Labels often lack details about sweeteners, sugars, and preservatives. Consumers rely on these labels to make daily health choices.
The paper appeared this month in the journal Scientific African. It is the first Moroccan study to pair a chemical analysis of beverage additives with a survey of consumer behavior. A team led by Aimen El Orche of Mohammed VI University of Sciences and Health (U6MSS) in Casablanca ran the work between February and May 2025. They analyzed 46 commercial soft and energy drinks bought from two major Moroccan retail chains.
The researchers used ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography to measure six additives: acesulfame K, aspartame, sodium saccharin, sodium benzoate, potassium sorbate, and caffeine. They then used infrared spectroscopy to quantify sugars and organic acids. In parallel, they surveyed 412 students at the Mohammed VI University of Health Sciences.
Discrepancies Between Labels and Contents
The sugar findings exposed clear gaps between what labels declared and what the drinks actually contained. Regular carbonated sodas averaged 10.2 grams of simple sugar per 100 milliliters. Some passed 14 grams. Zero-sugar and light drinks averaged about 0.6 grams. Yet several carried undeclared fructose reaching 4.07 grams per 100 milliliters.
One product listed no sugar information but contained 8.51 grams. Another reached 15.55 grams per 100 milliliters. In one case, a drink declared 8.67 grams of total carbohydrates while the analysis measured 14 grams. This suggests undisclosed carbohydrates such as maltodextrins.
The additive results raised similar concerns. Acesulfame K appeared in 69.5% of samples, up to 231.6 mg/L, and went undeclared in 10 products. Aspartame showed up in 10.8% of drinks, up to 198.1 mg/L, and was undeclared in two. The team stressed that undeclared aspartame matters for people with phenylketonuria, who must avoid phenylalanine.
Sodium benzoate and potassium sorbate were the most common preservatives. The two often occurred together, which can raise cumulative exposure among frequent drinkers. Sodium saccharin turned up only once, at a level well below the permitted maximum. Caffeine drew particular attention. In one energy drink, it reached 298.03 mg/L, close to the European limit of 320 mg/L for energy beverages.
Regulatory and Health Implications
In several products, caffeine was undeclared or listed out of order. That practice conflicts with Moroccan Decree No. 2-12-389. The law requires ingredients to appear in descending order of proportion. Overall, only 28.3% of the products fully complied with labeling requirements.
The authors also flagged health context. Under heat and light, sodium benzoate can react with ascorbic acid to form benzene, a carcinogen. Acesulfame K and saccharin have been linked to altered gut microbiota. At high doses in animal models, they may have links to possible carcinogenicity. Citric acid, found in 87% of samples, contributes to dental enamel erosion when people consume acidic drinks often.
The survey showed why these gaps carry weight. Among the 412 students, most female and enrolled in pharmacy or medicine, 84.5% drank sweetened sodas and 8.3% drank energy drinks regularly. Yet only 61.2% could identify aspartame. About a third could not name any sweetener. 61.4% never or rarely read ingredient labels. Half said clearer risk information would push them to cut back. Three-quarters backed natural alternatives to synthetic additives.
Taken together, the researchers concluded that the market shows frequent non-compliance, potential overexposure to additives, and low consumer literacy. They called for stronger regulatory surveillance and routine chromatographic testing. Clearer labels and education programs aimed at young adults remain priorities. This study highlights a lack of transparency that affects public health across the region. Future oversight must target these labeling inconsistencies to ensure market safety.