Artificial
Sweeteners
Maybe Not
So Sweet
After All
By Jenna and Michelle
Like many people, Dr. Janet Starr Hull had been using aspartame for
many years to cut calories out of her diet. However, in 1991, she was
diagnosed with incurable Graves disease, an autoimmune disorder
that involves hyperactivity of the thyroid gland, resulting in weight
loss, increased appetite, eye irritation, and restlessness, among other
symptoms. After doing some research, Dr. Hull realized that her condition was
1
caused by aspartame poisoning (Total Health). She now dedicates much of her
time educating others on what she sees as the dangers of using aspartame.
This is only one of many instances in which artificial sweeteners may have
caused serious disorders, even death. Aspartame is not the only target of these
claims; saccharin and sucralose have both been targeted as well. Several studies
have shown links between these sweeteners and cancer, liver inflammation,
calcification of the kidneys, and many other side effects, both minor and serious.
However, the companies manufacturing these sweeteners as well as the FDA
continue to maintain that these products are safe. Numerous tests have been
performed on each sweetener and no test has conclusively proven any unsafe
consequences in humans using these products. The question, therefore, is
whether to believe the government testing or the people who have suffered
effects that they claim were from the sweeteners. If you are one of the millions of
people who assume that these products are safe simply because they are on the
market, hopefully this article will give you more information on which to base
your decision of whether or not to use artificial sweeteners.
Aspartame
Although FDA approved and found in over 5000 products on the market,
there has been much debate about the safety of aspartame, a no calorie sweetener
sold under the commercial names of NutraSweet and Equal. The FDA denied
approval for eight years, and when it did finally get approved, three out of five
FDA scientists on special commissions advised against using aspartame (The
Ecologist, Sept.). The additive was formally listed as a biochemical warfare agent
by the Pentagon and the FDA scientists did not believe the test results
adequately proved the safety of aspartame.
Most consumers are not concerned with the safety of aspartame because
the FDA approved the substance. 40 percent of the children population and 66
percent of the adult population consume aspartame on a regular basis (The
2
Ecologist, Sept.). Scientists however, have always been wary. Numerous
independent studies have been performed producing many undesirable results,
including headaches, memory loss, seizures, mood swings, Parkinson’s-like
symptoms, tumors, and in rare cases, death (The Ecologist, Sept.). The most
recent studies demonstrate a possible link between aspartame and leukemia and
lymphoma. Other studies have shown that aspartame can have a negative effect
on nerve cell development thus affecting the brain and overall development (The
Ecologist, Feb.)
Those who are especially at risk are young women planning to become
pregnant. If they consume aspartame on a regular basis, they may be
unintentionally poisoning their future child. Further, aspartame has recently
been listed as a carcinogenic agent by The European Journal of Oncology (The
Ecologist Dec.). Thus a high concentration of aspartame in expectant mothers
may account for an increase in the number of infant leukemia and brain cancer
cases. Women need to be informed in order to make an educated choice about
consuming aspartame.
While much of the evidence seems to
point toward aspartame being unsafe, many
scientists have provided a reason why these
An ABC News clip about
Aspartame testing on rats.
Click to watch!
tests yield negative outcomes in the rats
being used in the tests. Many of these rats are specifically engineered so as to
easily develop cancer, far more easily than any human would. Researchers do
this so that they can more clearly see the results of their tests. However, there is
much argument about the use of these rats because they are especially
susceptible to cancer. The results of the tests do not have any bearing on what
will happen to people who use the products. Therefore, it cannot be assumed
that aspartame or any other sweetener tested on rats would give the same result
in humans.
3
Saccharin
Another artificial sweetener whose safety is in question is saccharin,
which is sold under the commercial name Sweet‘N Low. Saccharin was first
used in the late 1800s with no regulation by the FDA, but in 1977, they
considered a ban on it because a study on rats resulted in the development of
bladder cancer after being fed large doses of saccharin (FDA Consumer pg. 28).
Since then, more studies have been conducted and many have come back with
positive results, showing that saccharin is not harmful. The National Cancer
Institute published many studies disproving the study that claimed saccharin
causes bladder cancer and the National Toxicolgy Program decided that
saccharin should no longer be listed as a cancer-causing agent (FDA Consumer
pg. 28). It appears that saccharin may be a safer alternative to aspartame, but
again, because the sweeteners are chemically composed, there is no way to tell
how the body will react. The short term
and long term effects of artificial
sweeteners have not been completely
researched or discovered.
Sucralose
In 1998, the FDA approved a new
chemical called sucralose to be used as a
sugar substitute, but since then, there
have been many questions over whether
or not the chemical is as safe as it is
advertised. While sucralose, whose
brand name is Splenda, is very similar to
the sugar sucrose, it contains something
that sugar does not: chlorine atoms.
4
Most people know of chlorocarbons as the compounds that have been released
into the environment and resulted in the breakdown of the ozone layer. They are
also present in pesticides. When attempting to create a new type of pesticide,
sucralose was discovered. Many studies on chlorocarbons have provided
irrefutable evidence that chlorine is toxic and a carcinogen within the human
body, making many people skeptical of Splenda (womentowomen). However,
the company maintains that the chlorines are chemically bound and will not be
released at all during digestive processes. Unfortunately, no study yet has
provided conclusive results as to whether this is true.
There has been much speculation on the possible long term effects of
using Splenda, but nothing has been serious enough to cause the FDA to change
its stance on its safety. While there have been reports of side effects, including
rashes, dizziness, diarrhea, headaches, and stomach pains, these are most likely
caused by allergic reactions to the chemical sucralose (womentowomen). These
reports have not been substantiated by the FDA, likely because the FDA does not
put artificial sweeteners through “the same gauntlet of FDA safety trials as they
do phamaceuticals”, so no one knows for certain if there really are any side
effects or long-term effects of consuming Splenda or any other artificial
sweetener (womentowomen). Some of their studies on rats have shown
shrinkage of the thymus gland as well as swelling of the liver and kidneys, yet
the FDA did not feel that these studies were conclusive because they were not
based on human test animals (Total Health p. 32). The FDA was convinced that
after reviewing more than 110 human and animal studies that sucralose was safe
and approved it for use as a general-purpose sweetener (FDA Consumer p.28).
How much is too much?
Just as the FDA has guidelines on how much medicine it is safe to take
over a period of time, they also have guidelines on how much of an artificial
sweetener it is acceptable to consume. They cite what they term an "acceptable
5
daily intake" for each of the artificial additive, and they believe that the artificial
sweeteners are safe when used in those specified amounts. The safe amount
cited for Splenda and saccharin is just 5 mg/kg of body weight. For a 135 pound
person, this comes out to just 0.3 grams of the product per day as suggested by
the FDA as safe for consumption. Unfortunately, this is much less than what
people normally do consume. One packet of Splenda or Sweet n’ Low contains 1
gram, and many consumers use far more than one packet per day. Aspartame,
however, is safe in much greater amounts—50 mg/kg of body weight per day
(Harvard Women's Health Watch p.2). This would allow 3 grams of aspartame
to be safely consumed by a 135 pound person daily with presumably no ill
effects. However, for saccharin and sucralose, what the FDA is claiming to be
the safe amount of the sweetener to consume per day is very different than what
people actually do consume. What are the effects of consuming more than what
is considered safe? If long term effects of exceeding the safe limit of
consumption exist, they are not yet known.
Sweetener
Chemical Name
Acceptable Daily
Intake
Saccharin (Sweet 'N
Low) 200-700 times
sweeter than sugar
benzosulfirride
5mg/kg of body weight per
day
Aspartame (Nutrisweet,
Equal) 150-220 times
sweeter than sugar
amino acids and methyl
alcohol
50 mg/kg of body weight per
day
Sucralose (Splenda) 600
times sweeter than sugar
chlorinated sucrose
(sugar)
5 mg/kg of body weight per
day
* Cited from the Harvard Women’s Health Watch
6
Are there any natural alternatives?
Reports and test results about the possible harmful effects of aspartame as
well as other artificial sweeteners are becoming more public, leading many
consumers to look for more natural alternatives. Natural sugar has always been
available to use as a sweetener, and while it is healthier than artificial sweeteners
when used in appropriate portions, it is not calorie free. Consumers are mainly
interested in another no-calorie sweetener to use as a replacement. There is
another natural alternative to sugar—stevia. It is a non-caloric natural sweetener
derived from the leaves of a South American shrub. However, it is not yet
approved for use as a sweetener and can only be bought in health stores as a
dietary supplement. As with the three other sweeteners discussed, the body
does not recognize stevia and therefore does not digest it when it passes through
the body (San Francisco Chronicle). For that reason, it, like artificial sweeteners,
is calorie-free, but tastes much sweeter than natural sugar.
How do they taste?
Although artificial sweeteners are not naturally made, many consumers
wonder if they taste natural. An internet poll by CBS news found that 58% of
people preferred the taste of Splenda to any other artificial sweetener. This is
compared to the 15% that prefer Equal and 10% who prefer Sweet and Low. The
remaining 17% do not use artificial sweeteners. However, while Splenda may
taste more natural than the other artificial sweeteners, the general consensus
about the taste is that none of them taste natural. A study comparing the tastes
of different diet colas showed that the diet colas had less overall flavor and a
lingering artificial-sweetener flavor as compared to regular sodas (Battle of the
Diet Cola Clones). The colas sweetened with aspartame (Diet Pepsi, Diet Coke,
Coca-Cola Zero) had less of a lingering artificial sweetener than those sweetened
with sucralose (Pepsi One, Diet Coke with Splenda) according to the article
“Battle of the Diet Cola Clones.” Although everyone has their own opinion and
7
taste preferences, the opinion that artificial sweeteners do not taste natural is
almost unanimous.
With all of the controversy over the safety of these artificial sweeteners, it
is hard to know what to do. The easiest option is to trust the FDA, the primary
judge of the safety of any product on the market. Although many tests have
been performed showing deleterious results, the FDA would be quick to ban any
product that conclusively is shown to be harmful just as they did with saccharin
in the seventies. Therefore, the main conclusion that can be drawn from all of
these studies is that as long as these products are used in minimal amounts, such
as those recommended by the FDA, there is little chance of suffering any
negative consequence.
8
Resources
“Artificial Sweeteners: Are they Safe?” ABC News, Good Morning America.
February 16, 2006.
“Artificial Sweeteners: No Calories…Sweet!”, FDA Consumer. July-August
2006. Pg. 27.
“Artificial sweeteners: Okay in moderation.” Harvard Women’s Health Watch.
July 2004. Pg. 2-3.
“Battle of the Diet Cola Clones.” www.ConsumerReports.org. December 2005.
Pg. 9.
“The Dangers of Artificial Sweeteners.” Total Health, Vol. 27, No.1.
“Dumb Food.” The Ecologist. February 2006. Pg. 11.
“Life After Aspartame.” The Ecologist. September 2005. Pg. 50-51.
“Splenda 101.” San Francisco Chronicle. September 15, 2004.
“Sugar substitutes and the potential danger of Splenda.”
www.womentowomen.com/nutritionandweightloss/splenda.asp.
“Sweet and Deadly.” The Ecologist. December 2005. Pg. 6.
“The Truth about Sweeteners.” CBS Broadcasting, Inc.
http://cbs4.com/topstories/local_story_122000147.html . May 1, 2006.
9