Low-Calorie Sweeteners: What You Should Know

by Deanna Miller, RD, LD 08/27/2003

link to article

Sweet 'N Low, Equal, NutraSweet or Splenda? Are any of these low-calorie tabletop sweeteners in your cup of tea? If so, join the party. According to the Calorie Control Council, more than 163 million American adults consume low-calorie or sugar-free foods and beverages-nearly twice the number of a decade ago.

Despite the rigorous safety testing and approvals by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), myths and misinformation continue to swirl around low-calorie sweeteners. And now, a number of self-proclaimed health experts are declaring some sweeteners "more natural" or "safer" than others-I say balderdash!

Myth One: Low-calorie sweeteners cause numerous scary health problems.

Fact: Aspartame is backed by more than 200 scientific studies conducted over three decades. The same degree of confidence holds true for all approved low-calorie sweeteners available today.

Myth Two: Saccharin causes tumors in humans.

Fact: This myth is based on outdated research from the 1970s. However, more recent research has shown that saccharin is clearly safe.

Myth Three: Some low-calorie sweeteners are safer than others.

Fact: Before any low-calorie sweetener appears on the market, it undergoes a rigorous safety approval process by the FDA. Because the approval process and standards are the same for all low-calorie sweeteners, there is no way one can be described as "safer" than another.

Myth Four: Sucralose, marketed as Splenda, is more natural than other low-calorie sweeteners because it's made from sugar.

Fact: Sucralose, Splenda's main sweetening ingredient, is artificial like other low-calorie sweeteners. It is made using a multi-step chemical process that adds chlorine to the final sweetener molecule. The addition of chlorine allows sucralose to retain its sweetness but makes it indigestible in the body. The FDA does not classify sucralose as "more natural" or "safer" than any other low calorie sweetener.

Myth Five: Stevia comes from a plant and is natural, so it's better for you than other low-calorie sweeteners.

Fact: Stevia, or stevioside, is derived from a South American plant called Stevia rebaudiana. The FDA has not approved stevia as a low-calorie sweetener because evidence demonstrating its safety is lacking.

Myth Six: Low-calorie sweeteners are only useful for people with diabetes.

Facts: Low-calorie sweeteners provide greater variety and flexibility in budgeting total carbohydrate and calorie intake, help with weight management and can satisfy a taste for sweets without affecting blood sugar or insulin levels. However, many people without diabetes also use low-calorie sweeteners to cut calories.

Myth Seven: You cannot cook or bake with low-calorie tabletop sweeteners.

Facts: None of the low-calorie tabletop sweeteners can replace sugar in all respects, such as adding bulk and texture and browning. Used correctly, however, these sweeteners will allow you to enjoy the foods you love without the extra sugar-and you can cook and bake with all of them successfully.

Myth Eight: Children and pregnant women should not use low-calorie sweeteners.

Facts: The FDA has approved the low-calorie sweeteners on the market today as safe for the general population, including children and pregnant women. However, because children and pregnant women have specific dietary needs, it's a good idea to speak with a physician or registered dietitian.

For more information on these sweeteners, check out www.sweetnlow.com, www.equal.com, www.nutrasweet.com or www.splenda.com.

I, too, have nothing but confidence in the FDA and Monsanto. A simple google on 'aspartame' sure makes me wonder, though...

Most of those studies were performed by the manufacturer. Of the ones not performed by the manufacturer, the vast majority found at least minor problems with Aspartame. Several found MAJOR problems with it. In one of those studies, Aspartame was given to 7 monkeys. 6 had seizures which ended when they stopped taking Aspartame. The 7th died before the study ended.



I agree with this one...Unlike the Aspartame studies which were done at much lower doses and on animals much closer to humans...The Saccharin studies were done of Mice and the doses were the equivelant of pounds upon pounds of Pure Saccharine a day.



BULLSHIT !!! Stevia has been safely used for hundreds of years. By law, it has GRAS status...meaning it does not have to prove its safety. Despite that, the FDA demanded its safety be proven before it could be used. An Herbal group submitted applications to begin safety tests to prove Stevia was safe. This was decades ago. The FDA has yet to approve those applications, leading to the only conclusion I arrive at: The FDA does not want to approve Stevia, even if it is safe. This conclusion is backed up by the fact that the FDA originally banned (they have admitted it and released the letter with names blacked out) Stevia [denied it GRAS status] based on an anonymous letter from a sweetener company. Many folks believe the anonymous company was NutraSweet. But, it is also possible it was the Sugar Industry. Either way, the FDA has outright admitted the letter came from a company in that Industry.

BTW, for comparison sake...Stevia has been used in South American for 5,000+ years with no known side effects. It has been used in America almost as long as Saccharine with no known side effects. In contrast, Aspartame has only been in use for less than 30 years...yet has still managed to cause 10,000+ complaints of side effects.



WRONG !!! Aspartame breaks down at 86 degrees, losing its sweetness. In plain bread, it might not matter [taste-wise]. But, if the baked food derives much of its taste from its sweetness [such as cake], it will lack a sweet taste. This makes Aspartame pretty much useless for high-temperature applications.



The maximum intake of Aspartame for a young child is very low. The max imtake is what the makers admit is known to cause problems. The actual dosage that causes problems is probably much lower than that number. In really young children, a few cans is all that is needed to reach their max intake. It is very easy for a child to consume well beyond abuse doses [for their size.] I'm not sure how much Aspartame is passed on to a fetus by the mother. But, I would still recomend [just due to the possibility of problems] against using Aspartame, especially if you are pregnant.

The information in this "educational" article seems to have come from the Calorie Control Council, which from its web site articles and sample newsletter is run by the artificial sweetener and artificial fat industries. It is pure propaganda. Deanna Miller seems to believe everything that the companies tell her.