Sweeteners are not bad for you

The fizzy drink's diuretic properties " promoting the production of urine " also lead to the body to flush out valuable nutrients such as calcium, magnesium and zinc and zinc.

The fizzy drink's diuretic properties " promoting the production of urine " also lead to the body to flush out valuable nutrients such as calcium, magnesium and zinc and zinc.

Published Jul 29, 2013

Share

London - Aspartame, xylitol and stevia might sound like sci-fi villains, but in fact they are sugar substitutes, or sweeteners.

They have been consumed in some form since the first of them, saccharin – dubbed “the poor man’s sugar” – was formulated by German chemists more than 100 years ago.

And fears about their potentially toxic effects date back almost as far. Diabetes, cancer, strokes, seizures, hypertension, vomiting, dizziness – all have been cited as risks from sweetener consumption.

Yet none of these claims has stuck, and today sweeteners are a global industry worth hundreds of millions of rands.

They are found in more than 6 000 products from drinks and desserts to cakes, chewing gum and ready meals.

Last week a new study emerged, with Purdue University in Indiana, US claiming that diet drinks containing the artificial sweetener aspartame (such as Coke Zero) are no healthier than their full-sugar counterparts and could contribute to weight gain, diabetes and heart disease.

The author of the report, Professor Susan Swithers, suggested this could be because the chemical fails to trigger the “full” feeling in our brain, so we over-indulge elsewhere.

She also proposed a link between aspartame and metabolic syndrome, a much-disputed term denoting a combination of symptoms that increases the risk of heart disease and diabetes.

So are there dangers involved in swopping sugar with manufactured alternatives? Have we all been misled? We asked the experts:

 

WHAT ARE SWEETENERS?

Sugar substitutes are not all the same, and can be divided into four distinct groups with different health properties.

Artificial sweeteners (such as aspartame and saccharin) are produced from chemical compounds that provide no calories, and are therefore referred to as non-nutritive sweeteners.

Sugar alcohols (such as sorbitol and xylitol) are derived from substances in many vegetables and fruits such as cherries.

Novel sweeteners are the most recent addition to the sugar alternatives and mostly come from stevia extracts, a group of more than 200 shrubs and herbs in the sunflower family.

Artificial, sugar alcohol and novel sweeteners all taste many times – some hundreds of times – sweeter than sugar, so the amounts needed to create the same level of sweetness are dramatically lower.

The final group is the natural sweeteners such as fruit juices (fructose), agave nectar, honey and maple syrup, which are basically the same as sugar in terms of calorie and carbohydrate content.

Dietitian Catherine Collins strongly disputes the findings of the Purdue University research.

“There are many factors involved in us feeling full, and indeed experiments have shown that chocolate cravings are noticeably reduced the moment you eat the first piece, before the sugar even hits your bloodstream, so this study proves nothing,” she says.

It is sugar (sucrose), with its high calorific content and need for insulin to break it down, that poses the real risk for obesity and type 2 diabetes, Collins argues.

“Sweeteners have either zero calories or are very low in calories that aren’t absorbed anyway, so are effectively zero calorie,” she adds.

“So the suggestion that these products are no better at preventing weight gain or diabetes, or that they in fact cause them, is unfounded, as the accepted scientific evidence demonstrates.”

 

IS THERE A DIABETES RISK?

A common fear remains, however, that sweeteners trick the body into believing sugar is entering the blood system and therefore triggers an insulin response, contributing to a diabetes risk.

“If that were the case, then starchy foods such as bread, which does not taste sweet, wouldn’t trigger insulin, when of course it does,” replies Collins.

Diabetes organisations say all zero and low-calorie sweeteners – the first three groups – are safe for diabetics. The guidance for natural sweeteners is the same as for sugar.

 

THE CANCER MYTH

The spectre of sweeteners as carcinogens first surfaced in the 1970s when saccharin was discovered in one study to raise the risk of bladder cancer in rats. A wealth of later research in humans found no link.

Equally, aspartame, the most commonly used sweetener, was blamed in 1996 as the cause of the spike in brain tumours in Americans between 1975 and 1992. Subsequent studies again found no relationship.

The sweetener sodium cyclamate was banned in the US in 1969 after a study found that rats fed the equivalent of 250 cans of diet drinks a day developed bladder tumours.

Further studies failed to replicate these findings, but the ban remains. Sodium cyclamate is deemed safe in Europe and 50 countries worldwide.

Oncologist Dr Paul Mulholland, who specialises in brain tumours, says: “I am not aware of any risk factors for brain cancer apart from radiation.”

 

SO ARE THEY SAFE?

Collins says: “The problem with many of these studies looking at links between cancers, seizures, hypertension and sweeteners – and the way they are reported – is that too often people confuse correlation with causation.”

For example, she said, an analysis of European newspaper readers would probably find that they have higher levels of bowel cancer than people in Africa, but that’s because this group lives in a Western country with a particular diet, not because reading a newspaper causes cancer.

The concerns about sugar substitutes are, she argues, based on a misunderstanding of the wider data.

One such misunderstanding is that aspartame is harmful because the body breaks it down into toxic substances – methanol and formaldehyde. But they’re not absorbed and the amounts are negligible: a can of Diet Coke produces 20mg of methanol, half the amount produced by the same quantity of fruit juice.

“The fact is, sweeteners are safe,” adds Collins. “Both the American Food and Drug Administration and the European Food Safety Authority (Efsa) approve them. Those who cast doubt about their safety can often have a vested interest in doing so.”

A major review was conducted in 2006 by Efsa, which concluded: “Extensive scientific research… together with a history of more than 20 years of safe use, support the conclusion that aspartame is safe.”

 

WATCH OUT IF YOU HAVE IBS

Doctors and dietitians warn that there can be unfortunate side effects to some sweeteners. “Sugar alcohols in particular – the xylitols and sorbitols – are not absorbed by the gut and will, in larger doses, and especially in people who already have irritable bowel syndrome, cause bloating and diarrhoea,” says consultant gastroenterologist Neil Ikin.

Collins, however, recommends such sugar alcohols, which are often found in chewing gums, as they have consistently been shown to help fight plaque and tooth decay by preventing bacteria in the mouth from forming the acids that attack teeth.

The message, it seems, is clear: sweeteners won’t cause any ill effects. Just as long as you don’t have IBS. – Daily Mail

Related Topics: