Showing posts with label artificial sweeteners. Show all posts
Showing posts with label artificial sweeteners. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 24, 2012

Truth on Tuesday-

Are All Natural Sweetener Better than Artificial?

A few weeks ago I posted about the safety and use of artificial sweeteners.  This week I want to discuss the all natural varieties that are available.  Likely you've read the press about the wonders of agave nectar and various all natural zero calorie sweeteners like Truvia and  Purevia.  So what's the deal with these? Are they healthier options than the standard artificial sweeteners?  Here are a few facts about the most common "all natural" sweeteners on the market.

First off, let me remind you that there is no legal definition for the word "natural" in terms of food labels.  So just because something is all natural does not necessarily mean it's better for you.  Take Agave Nectar for example:

Agave Nectar
Made from the agave plant grown wild in Mexico, this sweetener has gained alot of popularity due to it's intense sweet flavor. The idea is that because it is sweeter than sugar, you can use less to achieve the desired sweetness.  However, agave derives its super sweet flavor from the sugar fructose Depending on the variety it can be as high as 92% fructose (1).  This is more than the amount found in  the high fructose corn syrup of sodas -- Regular soft drinks are 55% fructose and 45% glucose (2).  Because fructose is metabolized differently than glucose, it can lead to elevated triglycerides and free fatty acids in the liver (3).  Furthermore, many studies have linked increased fructose consumption with the development of diabetes, liver disease, and metabolic syndrome (2).  So while agave nectar may be an all natural alternative to artificial sweeteners, you should use it only in moderation and possibly avoid it if you have known elevated fasting blood sugar or high triglycerides. 

Honey
Honey is about 38% fructose, 31% glucose, and the rest a mixture of maltose, sucrose & carbohydrates (4).  Honey is in fact a natural source of sweetness, but again remember the fructose content- while it has a lower percentage of fructose than agave, remember to use it sparingly! 1 tablespoon of honey is about 60 calories, which should provide plenty of sweetness.  Furthermore, honey has some antimicrobial and antioxidant properties (5).

Sugar in the Raw
Is derived strictly from sugar cane syrup then crystallized into a hard particle form.  White sugar is obtained by refining the sugar cane crystals to remove all the sugar cane juice flavor.  Sugar In The Raw contains very small amounts of nutrients, mainly due to traces of molasses from the sugar cane that are not found in white sugar.  However, these mineral are found in such small amounts, it's likely to impact your overall nutritional intake.   In terms of calories, both regular sugar and Sugar in Raw contain about 15 calories per teaspoon. 


Stevia
Stevia is derived from a plant grown in South America and Asia. The plant’s intense sweetening qualities are complex molecules called steviosides that are glycosides made of glucose, sophorose and steviol. These are what make stevia up to 300 times sweeter than sugar and non-caloric. These glycosides do not get absorbed into the body but rather simply pass through leaving no calories (6). 

Many products such as Purevia and Truvia boast about using this all natural compound to provide sweetness, however both products have added compounds to balance out the taste.  Truvia has erythritol, a sugar alcohol, in addition to "natural flavors". Unlike some sugar alcohols, erythritol is not associated with laxative effects.  Purevia has added dextrose (a natural sugar), cellulose powder (a fiber substance from plants; added for textural properties) and natural flavors. 

Stevia In the Raw does not contain added erthyritol or extra sugars, and claims to be 100% Rebeiana (Reb-A). However, under the ingredients list, it does contain dextrose and maltodextin which are two naturally occurring sugars.  The use of Stevia as a sweetener is really too new for any long term research studies to have been conducted on potential harmful side effects. My hunch is that too much of anything is going to trigger some sort of adverse health effect. 


The Takeaway...
Pick your poison, but use it in moderation.  As a Registered Dietitian, I support both the use of artificial sweeteners and natural sweeteners.  Science relating to artificial sweeteners and their contribution to certain cancers are inconclusive at this point, while the science is clear that over consumption of natural fruit sugar (fructose) is associated with a myriad of metabolic diseases including diabetes and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.  On a personal note, I would recommend looking to cut back on the use of artificial foods in your diet, including artificial sweeteners, and to focus on eating more whole foods. 




1. Deis, R. (2001). Sweetners for Health. Food Products Design. http://www.foodproductdesign.com/articles/2001/02/food-product-design-february-2001--sweetners-for.aspx 

2.  Nseir, W., Nassar, F., Assy, N. (2010). Soft drinks consumption and nonalcholic fatty liver disease.  Word Journal Gastroenterol. 16(7), 2579-2588.

3. Rutledge A, & Adeli, K. (2007). Fructose and the metabolic syndrome: pathophysiology and molecular mechanisms. Nutr Rev, 65, 3- 23.

4. National Honey Board. (2010) < "Carbohydrates and the Sweetness of Honey">

5. Gross H, Polagruto J, Zhu Q, Kim S, Schramm D, Keen C. Effect of honey consumption on plasma antioxidant status in human subjects. Paper presented at the 227th American Chemical Society Meeting, Anahein CA, March 28, 2004. 2004.

6. Goyal, S. Samsher, & Goyal, R. (2010). Stevia (Stevia rebaudiana) a bio-sweetner:a review. Internation Journal of Food Science and Nutrition, 61, 1-10.

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

Truth on Tuesday

Do artificial sweeteners cause Cancer?

I feel like this comes up a lot, and with so many different types of sweeteners out there how do you know which one you should be using? Here are the facts about some of the most common artificial sweeteners, their speculated health risks, and truth about how it applys to you.


Saccharin (Sweet'N Low, Sweet Twin, Necta Sweet)
300 to 500 times sweeter than sugar
This is where the rumors began- studies during the 1970s done in laboratory rats during linked saccharin with the development of bladder cancer. This lead to Congress mandating that all food containing saccharin have a warning label stating “Use of this product may be hazardous to your health. This product contains saccharin, which has been determined to cause cancer in laboratory animals.”
While studies in rats showed an increased incidence of bladder cancer at high doses of saccharin,  mechanistic studies have shown that these results apply only to rats. Human studies have shown no consistent evidence that saccharin is associated with bladder cancer incidence. In 2000, Saccharin was taken off the list unsafe products by the U.S. National Toxicology Program’s Report on Carcinogens (1).


Aspartame (Equal, Nutasweet)     
200 times sweeter than sugar
Aspartame was approved by the FDA in 1981 and questioning related to its safety arose from a 1996 report suggesting that an increase in the number of people with brain tumors in might be associated with the introduction and use of this sweetener.  However, after further analysis, it was realized that the then-current NCI statistics showed that the overall incidence of brain and central nervous system cancers actually began to rise in 1973, 8 years prior to the approval of aspartame. A newer study done in 2005 found more lymphomas and leukemia in rats fed very high doses of aspartame (2).  However, these was only see at extremely high doses- the equivalent to drinking 8 to 2,083 cans of diet soda daily and there was no dose-dependent response associated. That is, researchers did not find that the number of cancer cases rose with increasing amounts of aspartame. The main health concern associated with Aspartame is that it is metabolized and broken down into phenyalanine and therefore should be avoided by those who have the rare genetic disease Phenylketoniuria (PKU). 

Sucralose (Splenda) 
600 times sweeter than sugar
This is the newest artificial sweetener on the market and held in high regard as the safest. While some studies claim that sucralose is not fully broken down,  metabolisms studies have revealed that it does not accumulate in the body (3). Studies done on acute toxicity revealed no adverse effects (4), and long term studies done in rats suggest that surcralose is safe for  pregnant women (5). Furthermore, FDA has specifically noted that it has found sucralose safe for use by children, and people with diabetes (6).



  • All of the artificial sweeteners mentioned above are approved by the FDA and have established Acceptable Daily Intakes (ADIs), which is level that a person can safely consume everyday over a lifetime without risk.  Five nonnutritive sweeteners with intense sweetening power have FDA approval and are supported by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietitetics (7).

 5 most common artificial sweeteners

Type kcal/g      Regulatory status Other names Description
Saccharin 0 Approved as a sweetener for beverages and as a tabletop sweetener in foods with specific maximum amounts allowed Sweet and Low, Sweet Twin, Sweet ‘N Low Brown, Necta Sweet 200–700 times sweeter than sucrose; noncariogenic and produces no glycemic response; synergizes the sweetening power of nutritive and nonnutritive sweeteners; sweetening power is not reduced with heating
Aspartame 4 Approved as a general-purpose sweetener Nutrasweet, Equal, Sugar Twin (Blue box) 160–220 times sweeter than sucrose; noncariogenic and produces limited glycemic response
Acesulfame-K 0 Approved as a general-purpose sweetener Sunett, Sweet & Safe, Sweet One 200 times sweeter than sucrose; noncariogenic and produces no glycemic response; synergizes the sweetening power of nutritive and nonnutritive sweeteners; sweetening power is not reduced with heating.
Sucralose 0 Approved as a general-purpose sweetener Splenda 600 times sweeter than sucrose; noncariogenic and produces no glycemic response; sweetening power is not reduced with heating
Neotame 0 Approved as general-purpose sweetener Not available at time of publication 8,000 times sweeter than sucrose; noncariogenic and produces no glycemic response; sweetening power is not reduced with heating


Acesulfame-K
200 times sweeter than sugar
Approved by the FDA in 1988, this sweetener is often found used in combinations with other artificial sweeteners due to its intense sweetness and different flavor. The "K" stands for potassium, which is not absorbed but excreted in the urine, so it does not contribute to potassium levels (8).

Neotame
7,000-13,000 times sweeter than sugar
Neotame is the newest artificial sweetener to hit the market.  Receiving  FDA approval in 2002, neotame is is marketed to provide a  clean sweet taste without bitter off flavors (9), and is recognized as safe for by individuals with PKU.


Benefits for Consumers

There are benefits to using artificial sweeteners, the most obvious being weight control.  Artificial sweeteners have virtually no calories, in contrast to regular table sugar which contrains 4 calories per gram. A teaspoon of sugar is about 4 grams.
  • Now, consider that one 12-ounce can of a coke which contains 8 teaspoons of added sugar, or about 130 calories. If you're trying to lose weight or prevent weight gain, products sweetened with artificial sweeteners may be an attractive option. While you may have heard that some research has suggests consuming artificial sweeteners may be associated with weight gain, these studies are not yet conclusive.
Artificial sweeteners may also be a good alternative to sugar if you have diabetes, because they do not raise blood sugar levels. However, some "low sugar" & "sugar free" products contain sugar alcohols which some carbohydrates and  about 2 calories per gram
  • Sugar alcohols are different from artificial sweeteners in that they provide some calories. They contain less energy than sugars and have other potential health benefits such as  reduced glycemic response, decreased dental caries, prebiotic effects (7).
  • The reason they contain less calories then normal sugars is due to the fact that they are only partially absorbed by the gut.  However, because of they can cause digestive issues in high doses.  This translates to greater than 50 g/day of sorbitol or greater than 20 g/day of mannitol.
  • Products with sorbitol and mannitol may or may not have a label  that warns of these effects so read your labels carefully! All sugar alcohols are approved by the FDA and generally recognized as safe (GRAS).  However, I would still advice to read the labels of the food you consume, especially if you experience any sort of digestive issues. 
  • Sugar alcohols are common in sugar free, low sugar candies, jellies, baked goods, frozen treats and gum.  You may also see them in powders as a bulking agent.  Anything that ends in "ol" is typically a sugar alcohol.  Here are a few common ones you'll see:
    • xylitol, isomalt, lactitol, maltitol, HSH, erythritol, tagatose, trehalose, mannitol, sorbitol
The Takeaway...
As of this time, there is no evidence that the artifical sweetners mentioned above contribute to cancer.  If it comes in a little pink, blue, or yellow packet, you're fine.  I would advise however, that you use them sparingly and beware of products that contain sugar alcohols. 

*Next week I will discuss the many forms of "all natural" sweeteners. Stay tuned!

 
References
1. Artificial Sweetners and Cancer. http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/artificial-sweeteners

2. Soffritti M, Belpoggi F, Esposti DD, Lambertini L. Aspartame induces lymphomas and leukaemias in rats. European Journal of Oncology 2005; 10(2):107–116.
3. McLean Baird et al., 2000 I. McLean Baird, N.W. Shephard and R.J. Merritt, Repeated dose study of sucralose tolerance in human subjects. Food Chem. Toxicol. Suppl., 2 (2000), pp. S123–S130.
4. Goldsmith, L.A., 2000. Acute and subchronic toxicity of sucralose. Food Chem.Toxicol. Suppl. 2, S53–S69.
5. Mann, S.W., Yuschak, M.M., Amyes, S.J., Aughton, P., Finn, J.P., 2000a. A carcinogenicity study of sucralose in the CD-1 mouse. Food Chem. Toxicol. Suppl. 2, S91–S98.

6. Grotz, V., & Munro, I. (2009). An overview of the safety of sucralose. Regulations in Toxicology and Pharmocology, 55, 1-5.

7.  Duffy, V. & Sigman-Grant, M. (2004). Position Stand of the American Dietetic Association:
Use of Nutritive and Nonnutritive Sweeteners. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 104, 255-275.

8. Walker R. Acesulfame Potassium: WHO Food Additives, Series 28.Available at: www.inchem.org/documents/jecfa/jecmono/v28je13. htm. Accessed March 18, 2003

9. Witt J. Discovery and development of neotame. In: Corti A, ed. Low-calorie Sweeteners: Present and Future. World Rev Nutr Diet.Basel, Switzerland: S. Karger AG; 1999;85:52-57.