"Artificial Sweeteners: They're Enough to Give Some People a Headache"

Artificial Sweeteners: They're Enough to Give Some People a Headache

By Jennifer Huget Tuesday, February 17, 2009; HE03

I'm not a fan of artificial sweeteners. I don't care for the way they taste, and one variety in particular gives me headaches. So imagine my dismay when I recently shopped for my favorite chewing gum and found its tiny but satisfying amount of real sugar had been replaced with aspartame, one of the leading fake sweeteners on the market. Hello, headache.

I'm apparently in the minority when it comes to artificial (or synthetic, or non-nutritive, or high-intensity) sweeteners; I was hard- pressed to find a pack of gum or breath mints that was conventionally sweetened. According to the American Dietetic Association, nine out of

10 Americans uses artificial sweeteners; the Calorie Control Council, a trade organization representing manufacturers of low- and reduced- calorie foods and beverages, reports that in 2007, 194 million American adults consumed low-cal or sugar-free foods and beverages. That's up from 180 million in 2004.

Taste aside, the benefits of reduced-calorie sweeteners are obvious: They allow people to indulge a sweet tooth without packing on pounds. Aspartame-sweetened Extra chewing gum, for instance, is the official sweet treat for "The Biggest Losers" TV show and is credited on the show's Web site as having helped winning contestants curb their urge to snack on high-calorie treats. Artificially sweetened foods and drinks also help people avoid "nutrient displacement," which can occur, for example, when they fill themselves up on sugary foods that don't have any nutritional value at all (such as non-diet soda).

But some studies have suggested that artificially sweetened foods and beverages may in some cases contribute to people becoming overweight. It's thought that perhaps the body gets confused: The sweet taste signals calorie delivery, but when those anticipated calories don't materialize, the body might overcompensate and prod people to overeat.

The hot news in the realm of sweeteners is the introduction of stevia- based Truvia to supermarket shelves.

Stevia, derived from a South American shrub, has been used as a sweetener in some cultures for centuries. It has been available in health-food stores here for a while, but its use is expected to become widespread now that the Food and Drug Administration has deemed the stevia-plant derivative rebaudioside A, or rebiana, to be a "generally recognized as safe," or GRAS, dietary supplement. Both Coca-Cola and Pepsi have stevia-sweetened soft drinks in the pipeline. And the Truvia folks are heavily promoting the notion that their product is "natural."

But as Michael Jacobson, executive director of the food-industry watchdog group Center for Science in the Public Interest, points out, "natural" doesn't necessarily mean "safe." Just ask Socrates: The hemlock that killed him was perfectly natural, too.

Jacobson says stevia hasn't been adequately studied in labs, and CSPI's Web site says its derivates should be avoided or used with caution.

Of the other non-caloric sweeteners on the market, CSPI calls sucralose safe to use; the organization urges caution about the others for their murky testing histories.

On the other hand, the American Dietetic Association embraces all of the current high-density sweeteners. "The bottom line is that they're sold in the United States with the guiding principle that they're safe," says Dawn Jackson Blatner, an ADA spokeswoman. "Any consumer can feel confident that the government has said they're safe."

"Should you be eating them?" Blatner continues. "That's a matter of personal preference. If you like the way they taste," then they can be part of your balanced diet.

Despite CSPI's call for more and better science and in light of Americans' ever-expanding waistlines (and the attendant health problems), Jacobson says, "I'd rather people drink diet soda than regular soda. You've got to weigh the speculative risk of cancer against the certain risks of obesity and calorie displacement."

Check out today's Checkup blog post, in which Jennifer fields readers' opinions about low- and no-calorie sweeteners

The Choice Is Yours

Tuesday, February 17, 2009; HE03

Aspartame

Brand names: Equal, NutraSweet

160 to 220 times sweeter than sugar (sucrose)

Several animal studies have suggested that aspartame, a combination of two amino acids and methanol, might cause cancer, but human research conducted by the National Cancer Institute and reported in 2006 showed no such harm; the Food and Drug Administration considers it safe, though some people (like me) may get headaches if they consume too much. NutraSweet Co. also makes the hyper-sweet neotame (it's 7,000 to

13,000 times sweeter than sugar), which can be used in baked goods and other products. Some people are born with a condition that makes them sensitive to aspartame.

Saccharin

Brand name: Sweet 'N Low

200-700 times sweeter than sugar

Lots of back-and-forth research as to whether saccharin causes cancer; the FDA actually proposed removing it from the market in 1977, but it soon returned, with a warning notice. That notice was axed in 2000; the Center for Science in the Public Interest still recommends against its use.

Stevia

Brand names: Truvia, PureVia (both also called rebiana)

100--200 times sweeter than sugar

Derived from the stevia bush, this natural sweetener is also known as rebaudioside A. The controversial sweetener was rejected by the FDA and by similar agencies in Canada and Europe in the 1990s for fear it might cause cancer or damage users' reproductive systems. A reformulation gained FDA approval last December. CSPI protested, saying further testing was needed.

Sucralose

Brand name: Splenda

600 times sweeter than sugar

Billed as a natural sweetener because it's sugar-based, sucralose is actually a processed product formed by treating sugar, or sucrose, with chlorine. It's got the best safety profile of the bunch.

Acesulfame-K (the K stands for potassium)

Brand name: Sunett

200 times sweeter than sugar

This synthetic sweetener is often paired with sucralose. CSPI is wary that this product, tests for which were, it claims "of mediocre quality" and conducted 30 years ago, may be carcinogenic and asked the FDA not to approve it in 1996.