Sugar Subsitutes; Bad or Good?

Sugar Swap

Are Artificial Sweeteners Safe?

By Edward C. Geehr, M.D., & Dorothy Foltz-Gray, Special to LifeScript

Sunday, October 12, 2008

Most Americans don’t think twice about tossing back a diet soda, an easy sacrifice compared, say, to giving up a bag of chips. But the controversy swirling around the artificial sweetener Splenda, used in many diet drinks and other foods, may quell our sugar-free indulgence – and help us rethink how to handle sweet-tooth issues. We all know that sugar calories are empty ones. But are we risking our health – and even our waistlines – by leaning on sugar substitutes? A recent study at Duke University offers alarming new answers…

Nearly 200 million Americans eat foods laced with sugar substitutes. And half of those people consume four such products a day. Sugar substitutes, or artificial sweeteners, are far sweeter than sugar; only a small amount creates the same sweetness we crave – with far fewer calories.

But the Duke University study – and others – may make the fake sugar route to slimness seem less appealing, even risky. In a 24-week study on rats, the Duke researchers found that sucralose, the key ingredient in Splenda, significantly reduced the “good” intestinal bacteria in the rats’ guts and hampered the release of certain enzymes that enable us to absorb oral medications. “Good” bacteria like acidophilus and bifidobacterium (you may have seen those mentioned on some yogurt labels) help us absorb food and minerals. They also help crowd out disease-causing bacteria and help prevent their growth.
The rats also had increased pH levels in their feces, a test of acidity. As distasteful as that may sound, you should know that acidic stool may increase the risk of colorectal cancer, lactose intolerance, or indicate the presence of Rotavirus, which causes about 90% of infections in humans. Human feces are normally alkaline, not acidic. In other words, sucralose in amounts of 1.1-11 milligrams per kilogram of weight appears to be disturbing to guts – at least to rat guts – in alarming ways. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) says that the acceptable daily amount of sucralose is 5 milligrams per kilogram.

Splenda’s manufacturer, McNeil Nutritionals, dismissed the Duke findings as the “Sugar Association-funded rat study,” saying the conclusions were inconsistent with the data presented. It also says that the study did not meet the usual standards for scientific research and that it lacked control groups that would allow comparison. The Sugar Association, the lobbying group for the sugar industry, financed Duke’s study.

Since its introduction to the market in late 1999, Splenda has overtaken nearly two-thirds of the estimated $1.5-billion artificial sweetener market, pushing down sales of aspartame (Equal) and table sugar. Before the FDA approved sucralose as an artificial sweetener in 1998, the federal agency conducted its own testing of sucralose on rats and concluded that the sugar substitute was safe.
The rats also had increased pH levels in their feces, a test of acidity. As distasteful as that may sound, you should know that acidic stool may increase the risk of colorectal cancer, lactose intolerance, or indicate the presence of Rotavirus, which causes about 90% of infections in humans. Human feces are normally alkaline, not acidic. In other words, sucralose in amounts of 1.1-11 milligrams per kilogram of weight appears to be disturbing to guts – at least to rat guts – in alarming ways. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) says that the acceptable daily amount of sucralose is 5 milligrams per kilogram.

Splenda’s manufacturer, McNeil Nutritionals, dismissed the Duke findings as the “Sugar Association-funded rat study,” saying the conclusions were inconsistent with the data presented. It also says that the study did not meet the usual standards for scientific research and that it lacked control groups that would allow comparison. The Sugar Association, the lobbying group for the sugar industry, financed Duke’s study.

Since its introduction to the market in late 1999, Splenda has overtaken nearly two-thirds of the estimated $1.5-billion artificial sweetener market, pushing down sales of aspartame (Equal) and table sugar. Before the FDA approved sucralose as an artificial sweetener in 1998, the federal agency conducted its own testing of sucralose on rats and concluded that the sugar substitute was safe.
Those that have attracted attention lately include stevia and xylitol, although neither has been approved by the FDA as an artificial sweetener. Each is derived from natural sources such as certain shrubs, corn, sugar cane and birch wood.

Stevia comes from the leaves of a South American shrub and has been used as a flavor enhancer for centuries. A high-intensity sweetener, stevia is 300 times sweeter than table sugar. But the FDA allows it to be sold in the United States only as a dietary supplement, not an artificial sweetener. Without that approval, stevia cannot be labeled as such in foods or drinks, although it is found in some drinks and teas at health food stores. Cargill Inc., the largest U.S. agricultural company, is currently working with Coca-Cola to create a stevia-based sweetener, which the two companies plan to market in countries, such as Japan, Brazil and China, which have approved stevia.

To date, stevia appears to have a clean safety record. Stevia was used for centuries in South America and in Japan since the 1970s, and no significant side effects have cropped up. And a 1997 animal study by the National Institute of Health Sciences in Tokyo, Japan, also found no adverse affects.

Xylitol belongs to a family of sweet-tasting additives known as sugar alcohols, including sorbitol, lactitol, mannitol and isomalt, which are used to sweeten “sugar-free” foods such as gum, candy and cookies. They are derived from natural sources, such as corn cobs, sugar cane and birch wood. The sugar alcohols contain fewer calories than sugar, do not promote tooth decay, and are not easily absorbed by the body. But overdo it with these sweeteners, and you may notice you’re a bit gassy with loose bowels. No other side effects have been found in humans. But, oddly, xylitol can be fatal to dogs, causing insulin to spike – and it’s also toxic to dogs’ livers. To keep this in perspective, chocolate, raisins and grapes are also dangerous for dogs.

Xylitol has about the same sweetness as table sugar. It cools your mouth with a minty flavor, making it the top choice among sugar alcohols as a flavoring for sugar-free products. The FDA has approved xylitol’s use in foods made for diabetics, such as gum, mints and syrups, but, again, not as an artificial sweetener.

Sweet Issues to Think About

So what is the potential harm of using artificial sweeteners? The concerns fall into four main camps:

1. Skepticism about the safety data.

Critics point out that much of what we know about sweetener safety comes from industry-sponsored studies. But most independent food chemists find the sweeteners to be safe and the FDA has incorporated generous safety margins into its recommendations.

2. A misread of “sugar-free.”

Consumers may mistakenly assume that “sugar-free” means calorie-free. Although most diet sodas may be calorie-free, many other foods – such as sugar-free yogurt, cookies, cocoa, drink mixes, confections and desserts – are not. Removing sugar does not mean that milk products, soy proteins and fats have skipped town too, and those can pile on calories. (See related article: Is Diet Food Making You Fat?)

3. Nutrient-dead diet soft drinks.

Drinking diet colas from dawn to dusk offers hydration (unless they’re high in caffeine, a diuretic) but no nutrition. Diet drinks are no substitute for healthy drinks such as water, fruit juices or low-fat milk.

4. Desensitizing our sweet tooth.

Studies suggest that artificial sweeteners interfere with the body’s ability to know when it’s had enough, based in part on a food’s sweetness. Substituting a diet drink for a naturally sweet drink may trick the body into believing that other sweet foods have few calories as well. Or drinking a diet drink may lead you to believe that “making up” the saved calories with some real-sugar indulgences (such as cake or cookies) is okay. Many nutritionists also point to the lack of convincing evidence that artificially sweetened products actually help people lose weight.

The upshot: If you want a diet soda now and then or a food made with artificial sweetener, fine. But you’re better off drinking lots of water and eating a sensible diet that includes a variety of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, lean meats, plant oils and dairy foods, not just a concentration of sugar-free foods.
and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved five artificial sweeteners: aspartame (NutraSweet, Equal), saccharin (Sweet’N Low, SugarTwin), acesulfame K (Sunett, Sweet One), sucralose (Splenda) and neotame (found in reformulated Tang). Below is the skinny, so to speak, on each.

Aspartame

Aspartame swims in many diet drinks, including Diet Coke and Diet Pepsi. Although it was linked to cancer in animals in the 1970s, further analysis led researchers to dispute the original findings. Long-term animal studies have found no signs of harm. The NCI also collected 10 years of data on more than 450,000 adults without finding any evidence of a link between aspartame and cancer.

Saccharin

Saccharin has been around since the late 1800s. A Canadian study in the 1970s linked saccharin to bladder cancer in rats, resulting in the FDA’s requirement for warning labels on products containing saccharin. The requirement was lifted in 2000, after the U.S. Toxicology Program at the National Institute of Environmental Health

Acesulfame potassium (acesulfame K)

Acesulfame potassium, marketed as Sweet One or Sunett, was approved in 1998. Combined with sucralose (see below), it stays sweet even when heated to high temperatures. But some critics think that acesulfame (as well as other artificial sweeteners) has not been adequately studied and may represent a health risk.

Sucralose

Sucralose, commonly known as Splenda, was also approved in 1998. A popular ingredient in baked goods, it does not break down when heated – as aspartame does – and has a longer shelf life. Sucralose starts out as the sugar molecule sucrose, then chemical alterations create its taste and stability. Animal studies have recently indicated that it may interfere with the absorption of oral medications, the balance of good versus bad bacteria in our guts, and the way our bodies’ normally respond to calories.

Neotame

Made by the company NutraSweet, neotame is a remarkable 8,000 to 13,000 times sweeter than sugar. Neotame was approved for use by the FDA in 2002. People of all ages, including pregnant or breast-feeding women, teens, children, and diabetics can safely consume products containing the sweetener. It is also safe for people with phenylketonuria, who are unable to use phenylalanine, an essential amino acid. The product is primarily marketed to food companies for use as an artificial sweetening ingredient in soft drinks, dairy products, dairy desserts, baked goods and chewing gum. It is not broken down by heat.

Cyclamate, another artificial sweetener that was once sold in drinks like Tab and Fresca was banned by the FDA in 1969 after animal studies suggested it might cause cancer. Although the FDA has since reversed its position about the link to cancer, cyclamates have never been reintroduced in the U.S. Cyclamates, legal in Canada, are used in Canadian Sweet’N Low instead of saccharin (which is banned in Canada – go figure).
***********************

A sugar substitute is a food additive that duplicates the effect of sugar or corn syrup in taste, but usually has less food energy. Some sugar substitutes are natural and some are synthetic. Those that are not natural are, in general, referred to as artificial sweeteners.

An important class of sugar substitutes are known as high-intensity sweeteners. These are compounds with sweetness that is many times that of sucrose, common table sugar. As a result, much less sweetener is required, and energy contribution often negligible. The sensation of sweetness caused by these compounds (the "sweetness profile") is sometimes notably different from sucrose, so they are often used in complex mixtures that achieve the most natural sweet sensation.

If the sucrose (or other sugar) replaced has contributed to the texture of the product, then a bulking agent is often also needed. This may be seen in soft drinks labeled as "diet" or "light," which contain artificial sweeteners and often have notably different mouthfeel, or in table sugar replacements that mix maltodextrins with an intense sweetener to achieve satisfactory texture sensation.

In the United States, five intensely-sweet sugar substitutes have been approved for use. They are saccharin, aspartame, sucralose, neotame, and acesulfame potassium. There is some ongoing controversy over whether artificial sweeteners are health risks. This controversy is fueled by anecdotal reports and sometimes poorly-controlled studies^{[citation needed]} that have gained publicity via the internet and popular press. Scientifically-controlled peer-reviewed studies have consistently failed to produce evidence of adverse effects caused by consumption of these products. There is also a herbal supplement, stevia, used as a sweetener. Controversy surrounds stevia's safety and there is a battle over its approval as a sugar substitute.^[1]

The majority of sugar substitutes approved for food use are artificially-synthesized compounds. However, some bulk natural sugar substitutes are known, including sorbitol and xylitol, which are found in berries, fruit, vegetables, and mushrooms. It is not commercially viable to extract these products from fruits and vegetables, so they are produced by catalytic hydrogenation of the appropriate reducing sugar. For example, xylose is converted to xylitol, lactose to lactitol, and glucose to sorbitol. Still other natural substitutes are known, but are yet to gain official approval for food use.

Some non-sugar sweeteners are polyols, also known as "sugar alcohols." These are, in general, less sweet than sucrose, but have similar bulk properties and can be used in a wide range of food products. Sometimes the sweetness profile is 'fine-tuned' by mixing high-intensity sweeteners. As with all food products, the development of a formulation to replace sucrose is a complex proprietary process.

The food and beverage industry is increasingly replacing sugar or corn syrup with artificial sweeteners in a range of products traditionally containing sugar. In the UK, for instance, it is now almost impossible to find any non-cola soft drinks in supermarkets that are not flavored with artificial sweeteners, and even things like pickled beetroots and gherkins are increasingly artificially sweetened.

Artificial sweeteners cost the food industry only a fraction of the cost of natural sweeteners in spite of the extremely high profit margins for manufacturers of artificial sweeteners. So it is not surprising that the food industry is promoting its "diet" or "light" products heavily, thus moving the customers over to its even more profitable artificially-sweetened products.^{[citation needed]}

According to market analysts Mintel, a total of 3,920 products containing artificial sweeteners were launched in the US between 2000 and 2005. In 2004 alone, 1,649 artificially-sweetened products were launched. According to market analysts Freedonia, the US artificial sweetener market is set to grow at around 8.3% per year to $189 million in 2008.^[2]

Aspartame is currently the most popular sweetener in the US food industry, as the price has dropped significantly since the Monsanto patent expired in 1992. However, sucralose may soon replace it, as alternative processes to Tate & Lyle's patent seem to be emerging. According to Morgan Stanley, this can mean that the price of sucralose will drop by 30%.^[3]

[edit] Reasons for use

Sugar substitutes are used for a number of reasons including:

• To assist in weight loss; some people choose to limit their food energy intake by replacing high-energy sugar or corn syrup with other sweeteners having little or no food energy. This allows them to eat the same foods they normally would, while allowing them to lose weight and avoid other problems associated with excessive caloric intake.

• Dental care — sugar substitutes are toothfriendly, as they are not fermented by the microflora of the dental plaque.

• Diabetes mellitus — people with diabetes have difficulty regulating their blood sugar levels. By limiting their sugar intake with artificial sweeteners, they can enjoy a varied diet while closely controlling their sugar intake. Also, some sugar substitutes do release energy, but are metabolized more slowly, allowing blood sugar levels to remain more stable over time.

• Reactive hypoglycemia — individuals with reactive hypoglycemia will produce an excess of insulin after quickly absorbing glucose into the bloodstream. This causes their blood glucose levels to fall below the amount needed for proper body and brain function. As a result, like diabetics, they must avoid intake of high-glycemic foods like white bread, and often choose artificial sweeteners as an alternative.

• Avoiding processed foods — individuals may opt to substitute refined white sugar with less-processed sugars such as fruit juice or maple syrup. (See List of unrefined sweeteners).

[edit] Sugar substitute health controversies

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2008)

[edit] Controversy over perceived benefits

A study by the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio showed that, rather than promoting weight loss, the use of diet drinks was a marker for increasing weight gain and obesity. Those that consumed diet soda were more likely to gain weight than those that consumed naturally-sweetened soda. Sharon P. Fowler, MPH, who conducted the study, posited that it is not the diet drinks but something associated with their use that is linked to weight gain, perhaps simply that use of diet drinks increased as a person noticed that he or she was gaining weight. Fowler also speculated that perhaps giving the body the "taste" of energy-rich foods triggers a search for the real thing, or, as nutrition expert Leslie Bonci, MPH, RD, put it, "People think they can just fool the body. But maybe the body isn't fooled. If you are not giving your body that food energy you promised it, maybe your body will retaliate by wanting more energy."^[4]

Animal studies have convincingly proven that artificial sweeteners cause body weight gain. A sweet taste induces an insulin response, which causes blood sugar to be stored in tissues (including fat), but because blood sugar does not increase with artificial sugars, there is hypoglycemia and increased food intake the next time there is a meal. After a while, rats given sweeteners have steadily increased caloric intake, increased body weight, and increased adiposity (fatness). Furthermore, the natural responses to eating sugary foods (eating less at the next meal and using some of the extra calories to warm the body after the sugary meal) are gradually lost.^[5]

[edit] Cyclamate

In the United States, the FDA banned the sale of cyclamate in 1970 after lab tests in rats involving a 10:1 mixture of cyclamate and saccharin indicated that large amounts of cyclamates causes bladder cancer, a disease to which rats are particularly susceptible. The findings of these studies have been challenged and some companies are petitioning to have cyclamates reapproved. Cyclamates are still used as sweeteners in many parts of the world, and are used with official approval in over 55 countries.

[edit] Saccharin

Aside from Sugar of lead, 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.

[edit] Aspartame

Main article: 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 C₁₄H₁₈N₂O₅. 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.^{[citation needed]} Hayes cited data from a single Japanese study that had not been available to the members of the PBOI, as his reason for approval.^[6]

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.^[7] Some research, often supported by companies producing artificial sweeteners, has failed to find any link between aspartame and cancer or other health problems.^[8] 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.^[9] 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.^[10] However, the EFSA's press release about the study,^[11] 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.^[12]

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.

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.

[edit] Sucralose

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.^[13] The FDA approved sucralose in 1998.^[14]

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 prepared from either sucrose or raffinose. With either base sugar, processing replaces three oxygen-hydrogen groups in the sugar molecule with three chlorine atoms.^[15]

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,^[16] in order to provide its view of sucralose. In December of 2004, five separate false-advertising claims were filed by the Sugar Association against Splenda manufacturers Merisant and McNeil Nutritionals for claims made about Splenda related to the slogan, "Made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar". 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.^[15]

Safety concerns pertaining to sucralose revolve around the fact that it belongs to a class of chemicals called organochlorides, some types of which are 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.^[13]

[edit] Lead acetate

Lead acetate (sometimes called sugar of lead) is an artificial sugar substitute made from lead that is of historical interest because of its widespread use in the past, such as by ancient Romans. The use of lead acetate as a sweetener eventually produced lead poisoning in any individual ingesting it habitually. Lead acetate was abandoned as a food additive throughout most of the world after the high toxicity of lead compounds became apparent.

[edit] List of sugar substitutes

The three primary compounds used as sugar substitutes in the United States are saccharin (e.g., Sweet'N Low), aspartame (e.g., Equal, NutraSweet) and sucralose (e.g., Splenda, Altern). In many other countries cyclamate and the herbal sweetener stevia are used extensively.

[edit] Natural sugar substitutes

1. Brazzein — Protein, 800× sweetness of sucrose (by weight)
2. Curculin — Protein, 550× sweetness (by weight)
3. Erythritol — 0.7× sweetness (by weight), 14× sweetness of sucrose (by food energy), 0.05× energy density of sucrose
4. Fructose — 1.7× sweetness (by weight and food energy), 1.0× energy density of sucrose
5. Glycyrrhizin — 50× sweetness (by weight)
6. Glycerol — 0.6× sweetness (by weight), 0.55× sweetness (by food energy), 1.075× energy density, E422
7. Hydrogenated starch hydrolysates — 0.4×–0.9× sweetness (by weight), 0.5×–1.2× sweetness (by food energy), 0.75× energy density
8. Lactitol — 0.4× sweetness (by weight), 0.8× sweetness (by food energy), 0.5× energy density, E966
9. Lo Han Guo - 300× sweetness (by weight)
10. Mabinlin — Protein, 100× sweetness (by weight)
11. Maltitol — 0.9× sweetness (by weight), 1.7× sweetness (by food energy), 0.525× energy density, E965
12. Maltooligosaccharide
13. Mannitol — 0.5× sweetness (by weight), 1.2× sweetness (by food energy), 0.4× energy density, E421
14. Miraculin — Protein, does not taste sweet by itself, but modifies taste receptors to make sour things taste sweet temporarily
15. Monellin — Protein, 3,000× sweetness (by weight)
16. Pentadin — Protein, 500× sweetness (by weight)
17. Sorbitol — 0.6× sweetness (by weight), 0.9× sweetness (by food energy), 0.65× energy density, E420
18. Stevia — 250× sweetness (by weight)
19. Tagatose — 0.92× sweetness (by weight), 2.4× sweetness (by food energy), 0.38× energy density
20. Thaumatin — Protein, 2,000× sweetness (by weight), E957
21. Xylitol — 1.0× sweetness (by weight), 1.7× sweetness (by food energy), 0.6× energy density, E967

[edit] Artificial sugar substitutes

Note that because many of these have little or no food energy, comparison of sweetness based on energy content is not meaningful.

1. Acesulfame potassium — 200× sweetness (by weight), Nutrinova, E950, FDA Approved 1988
2. Alitame — 2,000× sweetness (by weight), Pfizer, Pending FDA Approval
3. Aspartame — 160–200× sweetness (by weight), NutraSweet, E951, FDA Approved 1981
4. Salt of aspartame-acesulfame — 350× sweetness (by weight), Twinsweet, E962
5. Cyclamate — 30× sweetness (by weight), Abbott, E952, FDA Banned 1969, pending re-approval
6. Dulcin — 250× sweetness (by weight), FDA Banned 1950
7. Glucin — 300× sweetness (by weight)
8. Neohesperidin dihydrochalcone — 1,500× sweetness (by weight), E959
9. Neotame — 8,000× sweetness (by weight), NutraSweet, FDA Approved 2002
10. P-4000 — 4,000× sweetness (by weight), FDA Banned 1950
11. Saccharin — 300× sweetness (by weight), E954, FDA Approved 1958
12. Sucralose — 600× sweetness (by weight), Splenda, Tate & Lyle, E955, FDA Approved 1998
13. Isomalt — 0.45×–0.65× sweetness (by weight), 0.9×–1.3× sweetness (by food energy), 0.5× energy density, E953

[edit] References

1. ^ Sweet on Stevia: Sugar Substitute Gains Fans, Columbia Daily Tribune, 23 March 2008
2. ^ Sugar demand rising at expense of sweeteners, claims sugar industry
3. ^ Sucralose breakthrough could smash Tate & Lyle monopoly
4. ^ Drink More Diet Soda, Gain More Weight? Overweight Risk Soars 41% With Each Daily Can of Diet Soft Drink, By Daniel J. DeNoon, Reviewed by Charlotte Grayson Mathis MD, WebMD Medical News, accessed 2007-06-25
5. ^ Swithers SE, Davidson TL (2008). "A role for sweet taste: calorie predictive relations in energy regulation by rats". Behav Neurosci 122 (1): 161–73. doi:10.1037/0735-7044.122.1.161.
6. ^ FDA Statement on Aspartame
7. ^ Increasing Brain Tumor Rates: Is There a Link To Aspartame?; Increasing brain tumor rates: is there a link to aspartame?
8. ^ Aspartame: Questions & Answers; Study reaffirms safety of aspartame
9. ^ First experimental demonstration of the multipotential carcinogenic effects of aspartame administered in the feed to Sprague-Dawley rats; FDA Should Reconsider Aspartame Cancer Risk, Say Experts: New Rat Study Links Artificial Sweetener with Lymphomas, Breast Cancer
10. ^ Food Safety: Food Additives
11. ^ EFSA EU, press release 1472 EN
12. ^ EFSA EU, afc_opinions, 1471 en
13. ^ ^{a b} Daniel JW, Renwick AG, Roberts A, Sims J (2000). "The metabolic fate of sucralose in rats". Food Chem Tox 38 (S2): S115–S121. doi:10.1016/S0278-6915(00)00034-X.
14. ^ FDA approves new high-intensity sweetener sucralose
15. ^ ^{a b} Bitter Battle over Truth in Sweeteners
16. ^ Truth About Splenda, Sugar Association website