Macias-Garcia1
Maribel Macias-Garcia
Professor Lisa Packer
English 1010
03 April 2014
The Artifice of Artificial Sweeteners
Are all artificial sweeteners the same? They claim to be our best alternative to a zero
calorie sweetener, and with all the propaganda about them it is hard not to join the bandwagon.
By looking at the different types of artificial sweeteners, I argue that they are not all the same
and safe to consume, which is important because reliable sources such as doctors and the
manufacturers tell us they are our safest substitution to regular sugar.
Due to health reasons my doctor asked me to switch over to an artificial sweetener. It was
something completely new to me. Although I asked as many questions as possible, it was still
overwhelming to decide which type of sweetener was my best option with my daily cup of
coffee. My doctor and nutritionist informed me that any artificial sweetener would be okay to
consume given their content they all perform the same and contain zero carbohydrates with little
to no calories.
Deciding on which one was truly a difficult task. I tried the most common ones: Sweet’N
Low, Equal, Splenda, and Truvia. They all had a terrible taste. “It’s all mind over matter,” I
thought to myself, but what about their safety? Why was it three times sweeter than regular
sugar? The best way to find out is to do your own research and so I did.
Macias-Garcia2
Artificial sweeteners were mostly formulated by accident because one chemist or another
didn’t follow protocol. To their advantage they came up with these chemically altered sugars that
have zero calories, which is a big seller for someone who is dieting. They are also used in a
variety of foods, drinks and medications. Some are safe for baking but others do not react well to
heat. Likewise, some cannot be mixed with chicken. Conventionally, their shelf life is set for a
very long time, as long as the packets are kept in a dry cool place to avoid moisture, they can last
for many years. It is very disconcerting that they have no expiration date. Even the Hostess
Twinkie will eventually expire.
What are the manufacturers saying about their products? I went into each and every one
of their web sites and found myself delighted with their colorful alluring sites. They all gave
their history of how they came about, when they got approved by the FDA, and how safe their
products are. Sweet’N Low has been around since 1957. Its main ingredient is saccharin which
makes it 300-500 times sweeter than regular sugar. Under the advice of a physician it is safe to
consume with any beverage. Equal contains two main ingredients; aspartame and acelsulfame
potassium (AceK) which are the attributors to its sweet taste. These two key ingredients have
been through hundreds of scientific studies making it safe to consume. Splenda contains chlorine
and sucralose. The body does not recognize the chlorine as a sugar making it safe to consume.
Since, the body does not recognize chlorine and sucralose it goes through the system undetected.
Truvia is made from a Stevia plant that is organically grown in Paraguay. The Stevia plant is the
main attributor to the sweet taste, but it is also mixed with erythritol to provide bulkiness.
Macias-Garcia3
The Food and Drug Administration approved all of the artificial sweeteners with the
exception of Truvia due to insufficient toxicological information. One of the newest one named
Neotame has also been FDA approved but it hasn’t made it to the grocery stores, as of yet.
Sweet’N Low and Equal have been around longer than Splenda and Truvia. The FDA also
banned an artificial sweetener called Cyclamate (used in Sugar Twin) in 1970 due to studies
linking the sweetener to bladder cancer. Equal and Sweet’N Low have also shared its
discrepancies because they have also been linked to cause a health hazard.
Equal was first approved in 1981 but a European foundation called ERF concluded that
aspartame was carcinogenic to laboratory rats. The FDA requested further information from ERF
in February of 2006, but only part of the data was submitted to them. The FDA concluded that it
does not support ERF’s conclusion due to not having a complete and definite review. It stated,
“FDA finds no reason to alter its previous conclusion that aspartame is safe as a general purpose
sweetener in food” (“Food”). It begs the question on whether the FDA decided to keep Equal as
a safe sweetener because they didn’t want the hassle of conducting their own study to maintain
their decision of labeling aspartame as a safe sweetener. Saccharin was also questioned by a
Canadian study that discovered bladder cancer in rats. The FDA limited the use of saccharin and
informed the public with the following statement, “The FDA proposed the ban because of safety
concerns after studies in which rats developed bladder cancer after receiving high doses of
saccharin” (“About”). The outcome of the legislation was just to ensure Sweet’N Low was going
to carry a warning label on their product. If the FDA is really concerned about our safety then
why would they not ban saccharin until pending review instead of just enforcing a warning
label? On the year 2001 the National Toxicology Program removed saccharin from their list. I
guess the warning label was sufficient enough to still keep it as a safe sweetener.
Macias-Garcia4
When you research online the safety of artificial sweeteners you get countless of listings
of the wonderful things each one has to offer or what a sweet poison they are. It is difficult to
find an article written without a bias conclusion of which product they favor, but I came across
one that was submitted by Kathleen Schreiber that caught my attention just by the title itself,
“Are Artificial Sweeteners Really Going to Kill Me?” It explained the different sweeteners I
wanted to know about, the history and strength of sweetness each one of them contain, and the
ones approved by the FDA and its preceding history with them. Schreiber wasn’t about choosing
for you but rather inform you of each and every single one of them. Her advice overall was to
use all of the artificial sweeteners in moderation and, do not over consume them just because you
think it’s okay since they are a zero calorie sweetener. They still do not contain any good source
of nutrition.
Research can also give you two things: a negative effect on your subject or a very
positive one. The further I got into my research the more negative things I came across. One of
them was from Dr. Michael Greger that shows a video recording giving an amplified version of
some of the popular artificial sweeteners on the market. He believes most, if not all are harmful
to consume. Dr. Greger attributes to Splenda as being a “migraine trigger” (Greger).
An article on MSN News by Riya Bhattacharjee urges the public to use caution with the
use of Splenda. It reports, “ [Sucralose]… categorizing it with a “caution.” pending peer review
of an unpublished study by an independent Italian lab that found the sweetener caused leukemia
in mice” (Bhattacharjee). As a consumer of Splenda I am inclined to support at least one of these
sources.
Macias-Garcia5
Truvia is termed to be naturally sweetened because of the organic grown Stevia plant.
There is plenty of skepticism that it is actually “natural.” Bruce Bradley contends this subject
with further detail on his blog titled, “Truvia: Honestly Sweet or Dishonestly Marketed?” He
believes Truvia’s sales have escalated up to 80% within two years, partly due to the Coca-Cola
company being the co-developer. There are two main ingredients among other natural flavors
that Truvia contains— Erythritol and Rebiana make up most of the sweetener. Rebiana is the
actual Stevia plant, but it is processed through 40+ steps (chemically) to get the sweetness they
desire. Erythritol is modified with corn to make a food grade startch and this is what makes
Truvia. Legally, if the alternation of both ingredients is equivalent to a natural flavor then they
are allowed to say it is natural even though it has been completely altered. Given this information
it makes sense why the FDA has not approved Truvia. They shouldn’t advertise it as “naturally
sweetened” if in fact it is a chemically altered sugar, just like all the other artificial sweeteners. It
is misleading to have the public believe it truly is an organic base sweetener.
Consequently, why would any of this information matter? As consumers of these
products we get greatly affected. It is obvious that our choices are not being taken into
consideration because other manufacturers decide to use artificial sweeteners in their products.
Then they are also endorsing to their dishonesty by deceiving us into believing that artificial
sweeteners are safe to consume, that they will not cause any harm to our bodies, and worst of all
that it is a natural product that comes from a plant.
To my disadvantage, my choices are scarce if I want to continue enjoying my wonderful
cup of coffee every morning, but I do not want to give up a limb in the process. I will continue
with further research and make a decision from there. Most products will always be questionable
on whether they cause a disease or another health hazard. The key is to use these products with
Macias-Garcia6
moderation and to get to know one’s body because we are the only ones that can ever tell if there
is something affecting us. To know exactly what that is, will be the biggest battle of all.
Macias-Garcia7
Works Cited
"About FDA." This Week In FDA History. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Mar. 2014.
Bhattacharjee, Riya. "Splenda Goes From'safe'to 'caution' after Leukemia Found in Mice." Msn
News. N.p., 13 June 2013. Web. 02 Apr. 2014.
Bradley, Bruce. "Truvia: Honestly Sweet or Dishonestly Marketed." The Blog of Bruce Bradley.
N.p., 19 Aug. 2011. Web. 02 Apr. 2014.
"Food." FDA Statement on European Aspartame Study. FDA, Apr.-May 2007. Web. 23 Mar.
2014.
Greger M.D., Michael. "A Harmless Artificial Sweetener." NutritionFactsorg. N.p., 31 Aug.
2009. Web. 26 Mar. 2014.
"Import Alert 45-06." Accessdata.fda.gov. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Mar. 2014.
Schreiber, Katherine. ""Are Articial Sweeteners Really Going to Kill Me?"" Greatist. N.p., 13
Sept. 2013. Web. 23 Mar. 2014.