Holbrook 1
Emily Holbrook
Dr. Stewart
Intermediate Composition ENGL 2089 Section 077
06 December 2012
Satisfying Sweet Cravings with Calories or Chemicals
The calories contained in the natural sweetener sugar are being replaced in many food and
beverages with zero calorie chemicals, also known as artificial sweeteners. America’s demand
for diet products that still taste sweet are extremely high. The ever increasing obesity and
diabetes rates are at the core of the push for “healthy” sugar free products. But when artificial
sweeteners are involved the product is by no means healthy. Every time I see someone drinking
a diet beverage I cringe, for the chemicals contained in the artificial sweeteners used in place of
sugar in diet products are harming the human body. People think that by replacing the sugar in
their foods with artificial sweeteners they are being healthy, since the calories in sugar are being
removed from food and drinks they can free themselves of the guilt of eating sweets. However,
artificial sweeteners such as saccharin (Sweet and Low), sucralose (Splenda), and the most
prevalent among prepackaged food and beverages, aspartame (Equal), which is also the most
controversial, are causing harm to the human body. To determine the dangers of artificial
sweeteners there are several things to consider, the devolvement of artificial sweeteners, the
components that makeup artificial sweeteners, and the health effects from consuming artificial
sweeteners.
Artificial sweeteners have been in uses since their discovery in the late 1870’s. The three
most common artificial sweeteners saccharin, aspartame, and sucralose were all accidently
Holbrook 2
discovered in a chemistry laboratory. According to an article entitled Artificial Sweeteners: A
History, saccharin, the first artificial sweetener was discovered while a chemists working with
coal tar derivatives spilled some of the chemicals and failed to wash his hands and later when
eating he licked his hand and tasted something sweet. This product was produced and used
greatly during the sugar shortage of World War I. According to Leila Corcoran and Michael
Jacobson, in their letter Saccharin: Bittersweet, they say that in 1951 research showed that
saccharin might cause cancer. This spurred the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to consider
banning saccharin, however, saccharin was not ban, but instead congress required that all
products containing saccharin must have a warning label on the package ( Corcoran, Jacobson).
This label stated “Use of this product may be hazardous to your health. This product contains
saccharin which has been determined to cause cancer in laboratory animals”. This label was
determined unnecessary and was removed in the early 2000’s. With a label that states saccharin
causes cancer why would anyone who read the label eat it? I do not want to eat anything coming
from a chemistry laboratory especially when it at one time carried a cancer warning label.
Like saccharin, aspartame also was accidently discovered in a chemistry laboratory. In 1965 a
chemists working on developing a ulcer treatment drug licked his finger while reaching for a
paper and noticed that it tasted sweet, this sweet substance was later named aspartame
(“History”). But aspartame had a long wait for approval from the Food and Drug Administration
it was not until 1981; sixteen years later that aspartame was fully approved by the FDA. In Pat
Thomas’s article Aspartame she shows that during these sixteen years aspartame was approved
by the FDA and was on the market for approximately a year and a half before the being taken off
the market due to safety concerns, and alleged fraudulent testing from the makers of aspartame
(38). The FDA established a public board of inquiry to review the safety of aspartame and the
Holbrook 3
board voted unanimously that aspartame should not be approved until further inquiry into claims
of brain tumors in laboratory animals caused by aspartame. Even though a majority of scientists
for the FDA advise for the disapproval of aspartame due to inadequate and unreliable testing for
safety determination, the FDA approved aspartame (Thomas). When a product gets approval
even when a majority disapproves it over safety concerns makes me question the FDA and very
uneasy about eating such a product.
Another laboratory mistake, another accidentally discovered artificial sweetener. In
1970’s in pursuit of a new insecticide, the head researcher told a graduate student to test some
compounds but the student misheard and tasted them instead and discovered one to be very
sweet, this chemical compound is now known as sucralose (“History”). The road to FDA
approval was much shorter and easier then for aspartame and saccharin. According to Pat
Thomas in her article Life after Aspartame she states that the FDA approved sucralose in 1998
even though the FDA’s final report showed insufficient results from many of the studies testing
the safety of sucralose. Including laboratory studies that showed sucralose was a weak mutagen
in mice, and another study testing the ability of sucralose to break apart chromosomes in human
lymphocytes, both of these lead to cancer and yet the FDA approved sucralose with inconclusive
results of these studies. From these studies the FDA has no proof sucralose is a mutagen but it
also has no proof that it is not a mutagen, therefore there is a chance that sucralose can cause
cancer. All three artificial sweeteners saccharin, aspartame, and sucralose were discovered in a
chemistry laboratory by mistake and have many controversies surrounding their development
and FDA approval.
This brings us to a very important question what exactly are artificial sweeteners? They are
sweet like sugar but have zero calories and they are listed as artificial so they are not naturally
Holbrook 4
occurring in the human body. Saccharin is synthesized from toluene which is not even closely
related to sugar. Toluene is a strong chemical solvent used to dissolve rubber, paint, and
glues/adhesives. Toluene in addition to being used to make artificial sweeteners is also used to
make explosive trinitrotoluene better known as TNT. The Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS)
for toluene states for chronic exposure to toluene “causes histological changes in the brain,
degeneration of the heart tissue”. I do not want to eat anything containing a chemical such as
toluene. But toluene is not the only toxic chemical used to make saccharin, according to Ennique
Baran and Veysel Yilmaz in their article entitled Metal Complexes of Saccharin they lay out the
process of converting toluene to saccharin, first the toluene must be treated with chorosulfonic
acid which is followed by interactions with ammonia, this creates a mixture of two kinds of
tolueneslfonamide, which is then separated and when the oxidative ring closes it produces
saccharin. Saccharin is made from nothing but chemicals so therefore saccharin is a chemical.
The MSDS for saccharin list that ingestion of saccharin “may cause irritation of the digestive
tract. May be harmful if swallowed”. This is the same saccharin in the little pink packet that is
used to sweeten food and beverages and yet it is still being consumed.
Aspartame’s ingredient list is composed of two amino acids and methanol. Janet Starr
Hull a Ph.D. Nutritionist article the Dangers of Artificial Sweeteners states that aspartame is
synthesized from the amino acids phenylalanine and aspartic acid bonded together with
methanol. Fifty percent of aspartame is phenylalanine; humans naturally have a very small
amount of phenylalanine present in our bodies. However, high levels of phenylalanine are toxic
and can cause mental retardation (Hull). Aspartic acid which makes up 40% of aspartame is
considered a neuroexcitor, which have a negative impact on the central nervous system. Aspartic
acid in extreme conditions can cause vision and hormone disorders (Hull). The third component
Holbrook 5
of aspartame contained at 10%, methanol is the worse yet. Methanol which is the “glue” that
holds phenylalanine and aspartic acid together to form aspartame is very unstable. When heated
to 86 degrees Fahrenheit methanol breaks down into formic acid and formaldehyde (embalming
fluid). If that is not bad enough, methanol can cause birth defects, affect the replication of DNA,
and is a known carcinogen causing retinal damage to the eye (Hull). Each of aspartame’s
components separately are known to cause great harm to the human body, so when aspartame
breaks down during digestion these three chemicals are released into the body.
Splenda’s (sucralose) claim to fame “made from sugar so it taste like sugar” is very
misleading, the starting product is indeed sucrose or sugar but the end product is not recognized
by the human body as sugar. Genevieve Frank in her research article entitled Sucralose: An
Overview states that to make sucralose the three naturally occurring hydroxyl groups in sucrose
are removed and replaced with three chorine ions to create sucralose. Since sucralose is
chlorinated it belongs to the class of chlorocarbohydrates or chlorocarbons. Other compounds in
the chlorocarbon class such as pesticides are known to be toxic and carcinogenic. Generally
compounds in the same class carry the same risk, so why take a chance with sucralose being any
different. All three of these artificial sweeteners saccharin, aspartame, and sucralose are made
from and with chemicals that have known negative effects to the human body when in their
normal form. This glaring piece of information the artificial sweeteners companies do not want
their consumers to know.
Holbrook 6
This picture says it all, these sweeteners are poison
The most controversial aspect of artificial sweeteners is if they cause harm to the human
body. The debate has been going on since these sweeteners were first discovered. The main
health concern with saccharin is spurred from research studies that showed saccharin caused
cancerous bladder tumors in rats. Six studies have found that people with bladder cancer eat
more artificial sweeteners than people without bladder cancer (Corcoran and Jacobson). Another
study showed that animals given cancer causing chemicals and saccharin are more likely to
develop cancerous tumors then animals just given the cancer causing chemicals (Corcoran and
Jacobson). This is very troubling considering humans constant exposer to carcinogens. Aside
from being a possible cancer risk saccharin has other side-effects, in Kirtida Tandel’s article
Sugar Substitutes: Health Controversy Over Perceived Benefits he brings another study to
attention, this study shows that consumption of saccharin can lead to weight gain and obesity by
Holbrook 7
“interfering with fundamental homeostatic and physiological processes.”(240). The main reason
people eat artificial sweeteners is to help with weight regulation, but saccharin actually causes
weight gain.
Of the three major artificial sweeteners aspartame has the most negative side-effects. The
FDA has composed a list of 92 side-effects linked to aspartame consumption (Hull). This list
includes “weight gain, disruption in sleep patterns, sexual dysfunction, increases in cancer, MS,
lupus, diabetes, and a list of epidemic degenerative diseases” (Hull). In 1994 aspartame was
responsible for 75% of all complaints in the US adverse-reaction monitoring system (Thomas).
Before the FDA approved aspartame researchers linked aspartame to brain tumors, now since
aspartame has been approved and being consumed the amount of brain tumors have risen, and it
is not just the number of tumors but also the severity of these brain tumors that has significantly
increased (Thomas). In Vecchia C La, et al. article Artificial Sweeteners And Cancer Risk In A
Network Of Case–Control Studies they state a study “indicated a direct correlation between
aspartame consumption and the incidence of brain cancer” (43). Additional side-effects of
aspartame is caused by the methanol it contains,since aspartame breaks down inside the body
into its three components methanol, toxicity is a very real possibility. Methanol toxicity mimics
multiple sclerosis so people are being misdiagnosed and are not being treated for the right
condition. Methanol toxicity if not treated leads to blindness and death where multiple sclerosis
does not (Tandel). Anna Rigano, et al. in their research article First Experimental
Demonstration of The Multipotential Carcinogenic Effects of Aspartame Administered in the
Feed to Sprague-Dawley Rats demonstrates that female rats showed increases in lymphomas and
leukemias when feed aspartame, and this is thought to be caused from the breakdown of
methanol (384). Like saccharin, aspartame has also been linked to weight gain. The use of diet
Holbrook 8
soda is increasing weight gain and obesity rates, people who drank diet soda in place of naturally
sweetened soda gained weight instead of reducing weight (Tandel). In Rebecca Brown, Mary
Ann De Banate, and Kristina Rother’s article entitled Artificial Sweeteners: A Systematic Review
of Metabolic Effects in Youth they state that epidemiologic studies show a positive connection
between artificial sweetener consumption and weight gain in children (310). Once again the
reasoning behind the use of artificial sweeteners to reduce weight gain is proven useless.
Aspartame can be especially bad when consumed during pregnancy according to a short article
in Herizons magazine research has found that drinking just one can of diet soda during
pregnancy increase the risk of premature birth by 38%, and when four or more can are consumed
the risk is increased to 78% (13). Janet Hull quotes about aspartame “Aspartame is a dangerous
chemical food additive, and its use during pregnancy and by children is one of the greatest
modern tragedies in human history” (32). A product that causes so many health problems and is
not effective in what it is used for should be avoided at all cost.
When sucralose came on the market consumers thought it was safe alternative to sugar and
other harmful artificial sweeteners. But do not be fooled, sucralose like saccharin and aspartame
is not safe for human consumption. Food and Drug Administration reports showed that sucralose
can cause genetic, reproductive, and organ damage (Hull). All of which are also side-effects of
chlorocarbons. Organ damage comes from inflammation of the liver and kidneys, also
calcification of the kidneys (Hull). Even more disturbing is the fact that sucralose causes
depression of the immune system. Research shows up to a forty percent reduction of the thymus
gland in laboratory rats, the thymus gland is the foundation of the immune system (Hull). FDA
reviewers also found similar results, mid to high doses of sucralose leads to decreased number of
white blood cells and lymphocytes, which are very important for immune health (Thomas). Since
Holbrook 9
sucralose is still a fairly new product there is still new information being found on the effects to
the human body. In a short article in Total Health magazine entitled Splenda, The Calorie-Free
Artificial Sweetener, May Leave Consumers with Something Worse Than a Bitter Aftertaste
states that a recent study shows, “Splenda may not be as healthy as previously thought, and may
instead cause weight gain, kill beneficial intestinal bacteria and block the absorption of
prescription drugs.” Once again a product consumed to aid in weight reduction is linked to
weight gain and other more serious side-effects.
After all the research proving the dangers of saccharin, aspartame, and sucralose, it is known
that all three of these chemical sweeteners are a danger to human health. These sweeteners were
all discovered by accident in chemistry laboratories, and made from chemicals many of which
are toxic. There is nothing natural or healthy about these artificial sweeteners, they are just a
combination of chemicals that fool taste receptors into thinking they are getting sugar. Due to
the FDA approving these artificial sweeteners, despite warnings from researchers, many people
are suffering from adverse side-effects from consuming these products. Saccharin, aspartame,
and sucralose may have zero calories however, they do contain countless side-effects detrimental
to human health, and the pain and suffering that comes with them.
Holbrook 10
Works Cited
“Artificial Sweeteners: A History.” HubPages.2007. Web. 19 November 2012
Brown, Rebecca J., Mary Ann de Banate, and Kristina I. Rother. "Artificial Sweeteners: A
Systematic Review Of Metabolic Effects In Youth." International Journal Of Pediatric
Obesity 5.4 (2010): 305-312. Academic Search Complete. Web. 08 Dec. 2012.
Baran, Ennique.,Yilmaz, Veysel. “Metal Complexes of Saccharin.” Science Direct (2010).
Academic Search Complete. Web. 04 Dec. 2012
Corcoran, Leila, and Michael Jacobson. "Saccharin: Bittersweet." Nutrition Action Health Letter
25.3 (1998): 11-3. ProQuest Research Library. Web. 09 Dec. 2012.
Frank, Genevieve. “Sucralose: An Overview”. Penn State University. Web. 29 Nov. 2012
Hull, Janet Starr. "The Dangers Of Artificial Sweeteners." Total Health 27.1 (2005): 30-32.
Academic Search Complete. Web. 22 Nov. 2012.
Material Data Safety Sheet .“Saccharin.” Web. 10 Dec. 2012.
Material Data Safety Sheet. “Toluene.” Web. 29 Nov. 2012.
Rigano Anna, et al. "First Experimental Demonstration Of The Multipotential Carcinogenic
Effects Of Aspartame Administered In The Feed To Sprague-Dawley Rats."
Environmental Health Perspectives 114.3 (2006): 379-385. Academic Search Complete.
Web. 11 Dec. 2012.
"Splenda, The Calorie-Free Artificial Sweetener, May Leave Consumers With Something Worse
Than A Bitter Aftertaste." Total Health 30.4 (2009): 17. Academic Search Complete.
Web. 10 Dec. 2012.
Swithers, Susan et al. "Intake Of High-Intensity Sweeteners Alters The Ability Of Sweet Taste
To Signal Caloric Consequences: Implications For The Learned Control Of Energy And
Holbrook 11
Body Weight Regulation." Quarterly Journal Of Experimental Psychology 64.7 (2011):
1430-1441. Academic Search Complete. Web. 09 Dec. 2012.
Tandel, Kirtida R. "Sugar Substitutes: Health Controversy Over Perceived Benefits." Journal Of
Pharmacology & Pharmacotherapeutics 2.4 (2011): 236-243. Academic Search
Complete. Web. 11 Dec. 2012.
Thomas, Pat. ”Aspartame.” Ecologist 35.7 (2005): 36-46. Academic Search Complete. Web. 29
Nov. 2012.
Thomas, Pat. "LIFE AFTER ASPARTAME. (Cover Story)." Ecologist 35.7 (2005): 50-51.
Academic Search Complete. Web. 12 Dec. 2012.
Vecchia C La, et al. "Artificial Sweeteners And Cancer Risk In A Network Of Case–Control
Studies." Annals Of Oncology 18.1 (2007): 40-44. Academic Search Complete. Web. 09
Dec. 2012.