- Joined
- Feb 9, 2004
- Messages
- 17,078
Saccharin controversy
Saccharin was the first artificial sweetener and was originally synthesized in 1879 by Remsen and Fahlberg. Its sweet taste was discovered by accident. It had been created in an experiment with toluene derivatives. A process for the creation of saccharin from phthalic anhydride was developed in 1950, and, currently, saccharin is created by this process as well as the original process by which it was discovered. It is 300 to 500 times as sweet as sugar (sucrose) and is often used to improve the taste of toothpastes, dietary foods, and dietary beverages. The bitter aftertaste of saccharin is often minimized by blending it with other sweeteners.
Fear about saccharin increased when a 1960 study showed that high levels of saccharin may cause bladder cancer in laboratory rats. In 1977, Canada banned saccharin due to the animal research. In the United States, the FDA considered banning saccharin in 1977, but Congress stepped in and placed a moratorium on such a ban. The moratorium required a warning label and also mandated further study of saccharin safety.
Subsequently, it was discovered that saccharin causes cancer in male rats by a mechanism not found in humans. At high doses, saccharin causes a precipitate to form in rat urine. This precipitate damages the cells lining the bladder ("urinary bladder urothelial cytotoxicity") and a tumor forms when the cells regenerate ("regenerative hyperplasia"). According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organization, "Saccharin and its salts was downgraded from Group 2B, possibly carcinogenic to humans, to Group 3, not classifiable as to carcinogenicity to humans, despite sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity to animals, because it is carcinogenic by a non-DNA-reactive mechanism that is not relevant to humans because of critical interspecies differences in urine composition."
In 2001, the United States repealed the warning label requirement, while the threat of an FDA ban had already been lifted in 1991. Most other countries also permit saccharin but restrict the levels of use, while other countries have outright banned it.
Aspartame controversy
Aspartame was discovered in 1965 by James M. Schlatter at the G.D. Searle company (later purchased by Monsanto). He was working on an anti-ulcer drug and spilled some aspartame on his hand by accident. When he licked his finger, he noticed that it had a sweet taste. It is an odorless, white crystalline powder that is derived from the two amino acids aspartic acid and phenylalanine. It is about 200 times as sweet as sugar and can be used as a tabletop sweetener or in frozen desserts, gelatins, beverages, and chewing gum. Its chemical name is L-alpha-aspartyl-L-phenylalanine methyl ester and its chemical formula is C<sub>14</sub>H<sub>18</sub>N<sub>2</sub>O<sub>5</sub>. Though it has no bitter aftertaste as does saccharin, its drawback is that it might not taste exactly like sugar because it reacts with other food flavors. When eaten, aspartame is metabolized into its original amino acids and has a relatively low food energy.
Initial safety testing suggested that aspartame caused brain tumors in rats; as a result, the additive was held up in the United States for many years in the FDA's approval process. In 1980, the FDA convened a Public Board of Inquiry (PBOI) consisting of independent advisors charged with examining the purported relationship between aspartame and brain cancer. The PBOI's conclusions were unclear as to whether aspartame causes brain damage, and recommended against approving aspartame at that time, citing unanswered questions about cancer in laboratory rats. In 1981, FDA Commissioner Arthur Hull Hayes, newly appointed by President Ronald Reagan, approved aspartame as a food additive. He was closely associated with the artificial sweetener industry, having several close friends, most notably Donald Rumsfeld, former United States Secretary of Defense, and then the CEO of G.D. Searle.<sup class="noprint Template-Fact"></sup> Hayes cited data from a single Japanese study that had not been available to the members of the PBOI, as his reason for approval.<sup id="cite_ref-5" class="reference">[6]</sup>
Since the FDA approved aspartame for consumption, some researchers have suggested that a rise in brain tumor rates in the United States may be at least partially related to the increasing availability and consumption of aspartame.<sup id="cite_ref-6" class="reference">[7]</sup> Some research, often supported by companies producing artificial sweeteners, has failed to find any link between aspartame and cancer or other health problems.<sup id="cite_ref-7" class="reference">[8]</sup> A recent research showed a clear link between this substance and cancer; a link that may be sufficient evidence for the FDA to pull aspartame from the market.<sup id="cite_ref-8" class="reference">[9]</sup> This research has led the Center for Science in the Public Interest to classify aspartame as a substance to be avoided in its Chemical Cuisine Directory.<sup id="cite_ref-9" class="reference">[10]</sup> However, the EFSA's press release about the study,<sup id="cite_ref-10" class="reference">[11]</sup> published on 5 May 2006, concluded that the increased incidence of lymphomas/leukaemias reported in treated rats was unrelated to aspartame, the kidney tumors found at high doses of aspartame were not relevant to humans, and that based on all available scientific evidence to date, there was no reason to revise the previously established Acceptable Daily Intake levels for aspartame.<sup id="cite_ref-11" class="reference">[12]</sup>
Several European Union countries approved aspartame in the 1980s, with EU-wide approval in 1994. The European Commission Scientific Committee on Food reviewed subsequent safety studies and reaffirmed the approval in 2002. The European Food Safety Authority reported in 2006 that the previously established Adequate Daily Intake was appropriate, after reviewing yet another set of studies.[1]
It has also been investigated and approved by the Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives of the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization and World Health Organization.[2]
Sucralose controversy
Sucralose is a chlorinated sugar that is about 600 times as sweet as sugar. It is produced from sucrose when three chlorine atoms replace three hydroxyl groups. It is used in beverages, frozen desserts, chewing gum, baked goods, and other foods. Unlike other artificial sweeteners, it is stable when heated and can therefore be used in baked and fried goods. Sucralose is minimally absorbed by the body and most of it passes out of the body unchanged.<sup id="cite_ref-12" class="reference">[13]</sup> The FDA approved sucralose in 1998.<sup id="cite_ref-13" class="reference">[14]</sup>
Sucralose belongs to a class of chemicals called organochlorides, some types of which are highly toxic or carcinogenic; however, the presence of chlorine in an organic compound does not in any way ensure toxicity. The way sucralose is metabolized may suggest a reduced risk of toxicity. For example, sucralose is extremely insoluble in fat and thus does not accumulate in fat as do some other organochlorides; sucralose also does not break down or dechlorinate.<sup id="cite_ref-14" class="reference">[15]</sup>
Most of the controversy surrounding Splenda, a sucralose sweetener, is focused not on safety, but on its marketing. It has been marketed with the slogan, "Splenda is made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar." Sucralose is a chlorinated sugar, it is based on either raffinose, a carbohydrate containing three different kinds of sugar molecules, or sucrose. With either base sugar, processing replaces three oxygen-hydrogen groups in the sugar molecule with three chlorine atoms.<sup id="cite_ref-bad_sugar_15-0" class="reference">[16]</sup>
The "Truth About Splenda" website was created in 2005 by The Sugar Association, an organization representing sugar beet and sugar cane farmers in the United States,<sup id="cite_ref-16" class="reference">[17]</sup> in order to provide an alternate view of sucralose compared to its manufacturer's marketing. In December of 2004, five separate false-advertising claims were filed against Splenda manufacturers Mersiant and McNeil Nutritionals for claims made about Splenda. French courts ordered the slogan to no longer be used in France, while in the U.S. the case came to an undisclosed settlement during the trial.<sup id="cite_ref-bad_sugar_15-1" class="reference">[16]</sup>
Natural sugar substitutes
Note that because many of these have little or no food energy, comparison of sweetness based on energy content is not meaningful.
References: Sugar substitute - Wikipedia
Saccharin was the first artificial sweetener and was originally synthesized in 1879 by Remsen and Fahlberg. Its sweet taste was discovered by accident. It had been created in an experiment with toluene derivatives. A process for the creation of saccharin from phthalic anhydride was developed in 1950, and, currently, saccharin is created by this process as well as the original process by which it was discovered. It is 300 to 500 times as sweet as sugar (sucrose) and is often used to improve the taste of toothpastes, dietary foods, and dietary beverages. The bitter aftertaste of saccharin is often minimized by blending it with other sweeteners.
Fear about saccharin increased when a 1960 study showed that high levels of saccharin may cause bladder cancer in laboratory rats. In 1977, Canada banned saccharin due to the animal research. In the United States, the FDA considered banning saccharin in 1977, but Congress stepped in and placed a moratorium on such a ban. The moratorium required a warning label and also mandated further study of saccharin safety.
Subsequently, it was discovered that saccharin causes cancer in male rats by a mechanism not found in humans. At high doses, saccharin causes a precipitate to form in rat urine. This precipitate damages the cells lining the bladder ("urinary bladder urothelial cytotoxicity") and a tumor forms when the cells regenerate ("regenerative hyperplasia"). According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organization, "Saccharin and its salts was downgraded from Group 2B, possibly carcinogenic to humans, to Group 3, not classifiable as to carcinogenicity to humans, despite sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity to animals, because it is carcinogenic by a non-DNA-reactive mechanism that is not relevant to humans because of critical interspecies differences in urine composition."
In 2001, the United States repealed the warning label requirement, while the threat of an FDA ban had already been lifted in 1991. Most other countries also permit saccharin but restrict the levels of use, while other countries have outright banned it.
Aspartame controversy
Aspartame was discovered in 1965 by James M. Schlatter at the G.D. Searle company (later purchased by Monsanto). He was working on an anti-ulcer drug and spilled some aspartame on his hand by accident. When he licked his finger, he noticed that it had a sweet taste. It is an odorless, white crystalline powder that is derived from the two amino acids aspartic acid and phenylalanine. It is about 200 times as sweet as sugar and can be used as a tabletop sweetener or in frozen desserts, gelatins, beverages, and chewing gum. Its chemical name is L-alpha-aspartyl-L-phenylalanine methyl ester and its chemical formula is C<sub>14</sub>H<sub>18</sub>N<sub>2</sub>O<sub>5</sub>. Though it has no bitter aftertaste as does saccharin, its drawback is that it might not taste exactly like sugar because it reacts with other food flavors. When eaten, aspartame is metabolized into its original amino acids and has a relatively low food energy.
Initial safety testing suggested that aspartame caused brain tumors in rats; as a result, the additive was held up in the United States for many years in the FDA's approval process. In 1980, the FDA convened a Public Board of Inquiry (PBOI) consisting of independent advisors charged with examining the purported relationship between aspartame and brain cancer. The PBOI's conclusions were unclear as to whether aspartame causes brain damage, and recommended against approving aspartame at that time, citing unanswered questions about cancer in laboratory rats. In 1981, FDA Commissioner Arthur Hull Hayes, newly appointed by President Ronald Reagan, approved aspartame as a food additive. He was closely associated with the artificial sweetener industry, having several close friends, most notably Donald Rumsfeld, former United States Secretary of Defense, and then the CEO of G.D. Searle.<sup class="noprint Template-Fact"></sup> Hayes cited data from a single Japanese study that had not been available to the members of the PBOI, as his reason for approval.<sup id="cite_ref-5" class="reference">[6]</sup>
Since the FDA approved aspartame for consumption, some researchers have suggested that a rise in brain tumor rates in the United States may be at least partially related to the increasing availability and consumption of aspartame.<sup id="cite_ref-6" class="reference">[7]</sup> Some research, often supported by companies producing artificial sweeteners, has failed to find any link between aspartame and cancer or other health problems.<sup id="cite_ref-7" class="reference">[8]</sup> A recent research showed a clear link between this substance and cancer; a link that may be sufficient evidence for the FDA to pull aspartame from the market.<sup id="cite_ref-8" class="reference">[9]</sup> This research has led the Center for Science in the Public Interest to classify aspartame as a substance to be avoided in its Chemical Cuisine Directory.<sup id="cite_ref-9" class="reference">[10]</sup> However, the EFSA's press release about the study,<sup id="cite_ref-10" class="reference">[11]</sup> published on 5 May 2006, concluded that the increased incidence of lymphomas/leukaemias reported in treated rats was unrelated to aspartame, the kidney tumors found at high doses of aspartame were not relevant to humans, and that based on all available scientific evidence to date, there was no reason to revise the previously established Acceptable Daily Intake levels for aspartame.<sup id="cite_ref-11" class="reference">[12]</sup>
Several European Union countries approved aspartame in the 1980s, with EU-wide approval in 1994. The European Commission Scientific Committee on Food reviewed subsequent safety studies and reaffirmed the approval in 2002. The European Food Safety Authority reported in 2006 that the previously established Adequate Daily Intake was appropriate, after reviewing yet another set of studies.[1]
It has also been investigated and approved by the Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives of the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization and World Health Organization.[2]
Sucralose controversy
Sucralose is a chlorinated sugar that is about 600 times as sweet as sugar. It is produced from sucrose when three chlorine atoms replace three hydroxyl groups. It is used in beverages, frozen desserts, chewing gum, baked goods, and other foods. Unlike other artificial sweeteners, it is stable when heated and can therefore be used in baked and fried goods. Sucralose is minimally absorbed by the body and most of it passes out of the body unchanged.<sup id="cite_ref-12" class="reference">[13]</sup> The FDA approved sucralose in 1998.<sup id="cite_ref-13" class="reference">[14]</sup>
Sucralose belongs to a class of chemicals called organochlorides, some types of which are highly toxic or carcinogenic; however, the presence of chlorine in an organic compound does not in any way ensure toxicity. The way sucralose is metabolized may suggest a reduced risk of toxicity. For example, sucralose is extremely insoluble in fat and thus does not accumulate in fat as do some other organochlorides; sucralose also does not break down or dechlorinate.<sup id="cite_ref-14" class="reference">[15]</sup>
Most of the controversy surrounding Splenda, a sucralose sweetener, is focused not on safety, but on its marketing. It has been marketed with the slogan, "Splenda is made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar." Sucralose is a chlorinated sugar, it is based on either raffinose, a carbohydrate containing three different kinds of sugar molecules, or sucrose. With either base sugar, processing replaces three oxygen-hydrogen groups in the sugar molecule with three chlorine atoms.<sup id="cite_ref-bad_sugar_15-0" class="reference">[16]</sup>
The "Truth About Splenda" website was created in 2005 by The Sugar Association, an organization representing sugar beet and sugar cane farmers in the United States,<sup id="cite_ref-16" class="reference">[17]</sup> in order to provide an alternate view of sucralose compared to its manufacturer's marketing. In December of 2004, five separate false-advertising claims were filed against Splenda manufacturers Mersiant and McNeil Nutritionals for claims made about Splenda. French courts ordered the slogan to no longer be used in France, while in the U.S. the case came to an undisclosed settlement during the trial.<sup id="cite_ref-bad_sugar_15-1" class="reference">[16]</sup>
Natural sugar substitutes
- Brazzein — Protein, 800× sweetness of sucrose (by weight)
- Curculin — Protein, 550× sweetness (by weight)
- Erythritol — 0.7× sweetness (by weight), 14× sweetness of sucrose (by food energy), 0.05× energy density of sucrose
- Fructose — 1.7× sweetness (by weight and food energy), 1.0× energy density of sucrose
- Glycyrrhizin — 50× sweetness (by weight)
- Glycerol — 0.6× sweetness (by weight), 0.55× sweetness (by food energy), 1.075× energy density, E422
- Hydrogenated starch hydrolysates — 0.4×–0.9× sweetness (by weight), 0.5×–1.2× sweetness (by food energy), 0.75× energy density
- Lactitol — 0.4× sweetness (by weight), 0.8× sweetness (by food energy), 0.5× energy density, E966
- Lo Han Guo - 300× sweetness (by weight)
- Mabinlin — Protein, 100× sweetness (by weight)
- Maltitol — 0.9× sweetness (by weight), 1.7× sweetness (by food energy), 0.525× energy density, E965
- Maltooligosaccharide
- Mannitol — 0.5× sweetness (by weight), 1.2× sweetness (by food energy), 0.4× energy density, E421
- Miraculin — Protein, does not taste sweet by itself, but modifies taste receptors to make sour things taste sweet temporarily
- Monellin — Protein, 3,000× sweetness (by weight)
- Pentadin — Protein, 500× sweetness (by weight)
- Sorbitol — 0.6× sweetness (by weight), 0.9× sweetness (by food energy), 0.65× energy density, E420
- Stevia — 250× sweetness (by weight)
- Tagatose — 0.92× sweetness (by weight), 2.4× sweetness (by food energy), 0.38× energy density
- Thaumatin — Protein, 2,000× sweetness (by weight), E957
- Xylitol — 1.0× sweetness (by weight), 1.7× sweetness (by food energy), 0.6× energy density, E967
Note that because many of these have little or no food energy, comparison of sweetness based on energy content is not meaningful.
- Acesulfame potassium — 200× sweetness (by weight), Nutrinova, E950, FDA Approved 1988
- Alitame — 2,000× sweetness (by weight), Pfizer, Pending FDA Approval
- Aspartame — 160–200× sweetness (by weight), NutraSweet, E951, FDA Approved 1981
- Salt of aspartame-acesulfame — 350× sweetness (by weight), Twinsweet, E962
- Cyclamate — 30× sweetness (by weight), Abbott, E952, FDA Banned 1969, pending re-approval
- Dulcin — 250× sweetness (by weight), FDA Banned 1950
- Glucin — 300× sweetness (by weight)
- Neohesperidin dihydrochalcone — 1,500× sweetness (by weight), E959
- Neotame — 8,000× sweetness (by weight), NutraSweet, FDA Approved 2002
- P-4000 — 4,000× sweetness (by weight), FDA Banned 1950
- Saccharin — 300× sweetness (by weight), E954, FDA Approved 1958
- Sucralose — 600× sweetness (by weight), Splenda, Tate & Lyle, E955, FDA Approved 1998
- Isomalt — 0.45×–0.65× sweetness (by weight), 0.9×–1.3× sweetness (by food energy), 0.5× energy density, E953
References: Sugar substitute - Wikipedia
