MSNBC NEWS- Today: The skinny on sweeteners

I didn't know that Stevia wasn't approved... Kalish

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3840760/

By Phil Lempert
Contributor
Today show
Updated: 8:12 p.m. ET Jan. 01, 2004With all the confusing and
conflicting “diet” data out there, one fact is clear — and that is, by
consuming less calories you can help to control your weight. And for
many of us that means reading the nutritional facts label to see how
many calories, and how many sugars, are in the foods that we eat.

Americans have a sweet tooth and as the Baby Boomers age, their sense
of smell, and therefore taste buds, diminish. This generation is
pushing the trend for the food industry to blend high-intensity
sweeteners, where the combination, or synergy, of the sweeteners is
sweeter than the individual components. The reason is simple, make
foods taste even sweeter, but without the calories.

It wasn’t until 1993 that our food labels were required to list
sugars, and from that day on it seems that many of the facts about
sugar consumption became a bit confusing.

And it’s that “s” at the end of sugars that makes all the difference.

According to the Food and Drug Administration, “sugars” includes
sugar, corn sweeteners (high fructose corn syrup, glucose syrup and
dextrose), honey, maple syrup and other edible syrups, but does not
include the consumption of non-caloric (e.g., artificial) sweeteners.

According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Economic Research Service, sugar consumption of the average American
was 146 pounds in 2002. But we need to look a bit deeper at the
breakdown to get the real picture -- that in fact we are actually
consuming the net of about 45 pounds of refined sugar (about two
ounces per day), 58 pounds of corn sweeteners (about 2.5 ounces a day)
and a little over a pound of honey/maple syrup per year.

It should come as no surprise that many of us are looking to other
“sweeteners” to reduce the amount of sugars we consume and according
to ACNielsen, the sugar substitute market now tops $310 million for
the 52 weeks ending 11/1/03 in the combined grocery/drug/mass
channels.

So just how much “artificial sweeteners” do we each consume? According
to Landor Mills Commodities, the equivalent amount of sweeteners (food
and beverage use) translates into 16.2 lbs per person per year. And
that’s on top of the 146 pounds of all sugars!

As we roll down the supermarket aisles these days, there is sugar and
four FDA approved artificial sweeteners to choose from, along with one
“dietary supplement” and one recently FDA approved sugar sweetener
that hasn’t yet hit the market. It is also important to note, that due
to the FDA regulations, the amount of calories can be rounded down to
the nearest 5-calorie value. Artificial sweeteners, due to their
intensity, contain bulking agents (such as dextrose
and maltodextrin) that add on average four calories per teaspoon,
although the sweetener itself may not contain any calories, nor will
the package list the calories.

What are the differences?

Sugar
The standard for comparison is sugar and it’s level of sweetness.
Otherwise known as sucrose, sugar is a carbohydrate that occurs
naturally in every fruit and vegetable, but occurs in greatest
quantities in sugar cane and sugar beets. The chemical composition of
both of these plants is identical, and separating the natural sugar
from the plant material, as we know it, produces sugar. There is no
whitening or bleaching in the production. Refined white sugar is pure
(99.9%) sucrose, and does not contain any additives or preservatives,
and in fact the term “refined” is defined as “making pure,” as the
refining removes the yellow or brown pigments. A teaspoonful of sugar
actually contains 16 calories per teaspoon, but due to the FDA
regulation may be rounded down to 15 calories. Sugar metabolizes in
our bodies quickly and is broken down in our digestive system into
simple sugars and then absorbed to start energy cycles that we need
for brain and muscle functions. The sugar that is not used is stored,
and converts for later use for energy as glucose or can be converted
into other molecules including fat.

Saccharin
Saccharin is commonly known as Sweet n Low, first discovered in 1879
and has been used commercially for about a century (the first
artificial sweetener). Saccharin starts with methyl anthranilate, a
synthesized organic molecule derived from petroleum. Methyl
anthranilate is also found in many fruits, especially grapes. It is
300 times as sweet as sucrose, produces no glycemic response,
synergizes the sweetening power of nutritive and non-nutritive
sweeteners, and its sweetness is not reduced by heating. In 1977, the
FDA proposed a ban on saccharin because of several incidences of
cancer found in lab rats, but the amount given to the lab rats was
equivalent to hundreds of cans of soda daily from birth. Congress
imposed a moratorium on the proposal for the ban, which was extended
repeatedly until 1991 when the FDA withdrew its proposal. The warning
label on saccharin was dropped in December 2000.

Aceulfame-K
Aceulfame-K — commonly known as Sunette or Sweet One — was approved by
the FDA as table-top sweetener and as an additive in a variety of
desserts, confections, and alcoholic beverages, it is 200 times
sweeter than sucrose, is non-carcinogenic and produces no glycemic
response. Its sweetening power is not reduced by heating and can
synergize the sweetening power of other nutritive and non-nutritive
sweeteners. It does not provide any energy, not metabolized in the
body and is excreted unchanged.

Sucralose
Sucralose — known by brand name of Splenda — is 600 times sweeter than
sucrose and is not perceived by the body as a carbohydrate. Starts out
as a cane sugar molecule then substitutes three hydrogen-oxygen groups
with three tightly bound chlorine atoms, which make it inert (not
broken down). It has no calories and the body does not recognize it as
a carbohydrate. It produces no glycemic response. Approximately 15
percent of sucralose is passively absorbed in the body, and the
majority is excreted unchanged. The small amount that is passively
absorbed is not metabolized and is eliminated within 24 hours. FDA
concluded that it does not pose a carcinogenic, reproductive or
neurologic risk to humans. Heating or baking does not reduce its
sweetening power.

Aspartame
Aspartame — known as Nutrasweet and Equal — provides the same energy
as any protein (four calories per gram) because it is a combination of
phenylalanine and aspartic acid, which are two amino acids, which is
then combined with methanol. It is 180-200 times sweeter than sucrose,
so the small amount needed to sweeten products does not actually
contribute a significant number of calories. The product is required
to carry a warning label about the contents of phenylalanine and the
possibility of Phenylketonuria (a genetic disease where the body
cannot produce the enzyme necessary to use phenylalanine) The FDA has
set that acceptable daily intake at 50 mg per kilogram of body weight
(about 17 cans of aspartame-sweetened soft drinks).

Stevia
Stevia rebaudiana (stevia) is a plant of the daisy family and a South
American shrub. The plant material between the veins of the leaf
contains the sweet compounds, which is 250-300 times as sweet as
sugar; but stevia, or stevioside, has not been approved by the FDA as
GRAS (generally regarded as safe). The Dietary Supplement Act of 1994
allows stevia to be sold in the U.S. as a dietary supplement. It has
been used in South America for centuries and Japan for over 30 years
as a sweetener. Research in 1985 conducted at the College of Pharmacy
at the University of Illinois found that when stevioside was exposed
to a testing bacterium, the DNA of the bacteria was altered; and the
FDA position is that stevia’s safety has not been adequately
demonstrated.

Neotame
Neotame is the newest FDA approved (July 2002) artificial sweetener
that is the most intense sweetener to date, with a sweetness of
between 7 and 13,000 times that of sucrose. It is a derivative of
dipeptide, and made of amino acids, aspartic acid and phenylalanine.
It is quickly metabolized and fully eliminated through normal
biological processes. There are no products currently on the market
that use Neotame. It is a product of the same company that produces
Aspartame, and this product does not require any warning label.

So which one is the right sweetener for you?
To be honest, in my opinion, when it comes to a table top sweetener
used to add sweetness to beverages or on top of cereal or fruit, the
differences are more about personal taste preferences than anything
else. My personal preference, since I use only a teaspoon or so, is to
use sugar. For baking and in recipes, Splenda seems to perform the
best of the sugar replacers.

Read those labels carefully to understand which sweeteners or sugars
are used as ingredients in foods. Be sure to read both the Nutrition
Facts label, which lists the amount of total carbohydrates and sugars
in grams; as well as the ingredient listing to see exactly which
sugars or artificial sweeteners are contained in the product.

Which artificial sweetener as an ingredient is the best? or worst?
It is getting to be a more difficult decision as more food products
are using blends of two or more of these sweeteners to maximize
sweetness and reduce costs. Based on what sweeteners are available
now, my choice is Splenda, or sucralose, when used by itself.

My recommendations is to consume as many fresh foods and minimally
processed foods as possible with little or no added sugars, and if
there is an added sugar, look for those foods that list sugar (rather
than another type of sweetener) as the ingredient.

Interesting comparisons, but I found it hard to believe the assertion that
sucralose is 600 times sweeter than sugar, as opposed to saccharin being 300 x
sweeter. I can easily use a whole pack of Splenda in my coffee but anything
more than about a third of a pack of Sweet 'n Low is way too sweet.

"Garypa" wrote in message

Interesting comparisons, but I found it hard to believe the assertion
that sucralose is 600 times sweeter than sugar, as opposed to
saccharin being 300 x sweeter. I can easily use a whole pack of
Splenda in my coffee but anything more than about a third of a pack
of Sweet 'n Low is way too sweet.

You're getting way less actual sucralose chemical in your splenda packet
than saccharin in your pink packet. The difference is made up in bulk
filler.

--
revek
"Feel free to provide authoritative references; in the meantime, you
won't mind if we conclude that you're simply making this up." -- Ian
York

On 03 Jan 2004 06:03:45 GMT, (Garypa) wrote:

Interesting comparisons, but I found it hard to believe the assertion that
sucralose is 600 times sweeter than sugar, as opposed to saccharin being 300 x
sweeter. I can easily use a whole pack of Splenda in my coffee but anything
more than about a third of a pack of Sweet 'n Low is way too sweet.

From what I've read, this is one of the reasons why artificial
sweeteners are such a headache for the food industry. Apparently
people have a very consistent reaction to sugar/corn syrup, so that it
is easy to say "this is an amount that most people will like". In
contrast, people's reactions to artificial sweeteners are not nearly
so consistent. Some find a given amount of a specific artificial
sweetener much sweeter than others do. I only ever found one diet
drink that I really LIKED (as opposed to tolerated) - and it was
quickly pulled from the market. So I'm guessing that I am somewhat
less sensitive to artificial sweeteners than most people. There are
also differing reports of sweet initial taste vs sweet aftertaste for
different artificial sweeteners, and some people in this newsgroup
have reported good success with mixing sweeteners, using less in total
"sugar equivalence" than they would if using a single type of AS. I,
too, have found it a useful technique. I use Splenda for perhaps 80%
of the sweetening and 10% each for Stevia and Sweet&Low. It just
seems to give me a more enjoyable taste than 100% Splenda. I suspect
that this is one of the reasons that you now see many diet sodas with
a combination of Aspartame and Acesulfane K. People who respond in an
unusual fashion to one may respond in a more average fashion to the
other, so their reaction to the total amount of sweetness is closer to
what the food companies are shooting for. It may also fill in the
initial/aftertaste angle so people get both.

There are also some oddities. Several people (including myself) have
reported that for some reason Splenda just never seems to make a good
mix with chocolate, no matter how much Splenda you add. Having tried
the Hershey's miniatures, I have to agree. They seemed surprisingly
tasteless - and adding some extra Splenda from a packet didn't help a
whole lot. Others think they are quite good. I would hazard a guess
that we would both rate the sugar version of Hershey's chocolate much
the same, but we sure didn't rate the AS version the same.

My own recommendation for the best that's out there in a LOW carb
drink (as opposed to ZERO carb like most diet sodas) is Diet V-8
Splash, coming in at 3g carbs per serving.

revek wrote:
:: "Garypa" wrote in message
::
::: Interesting comparisons, but I found it hard to believe the
::: assertion that sucralose is 600 times sweeter than sugar, as
::: opposed to saccharin being 300 x sweeter. I can easily use a whole
::: pack of Splenda in my coffee but anything more than about a third
::: of a pack of Sweet 'n Low is way too sweet.
::
:: You're getting way less actual sucralose chemical in your splenda
:: packet than saccharin in your pink packet. The difference is made
:: up in bulk filler.

i.e., carbs. The carb impact for both packs is about the same since there
is not much AS in either of them.

Roger Zoul wrote:

revek wrote:
:: "Garypa" wrote in message
::
::: Interesting comparisons, but I found it hard to believe the
::: assertion that sucralose is 600 times sweeter than sugar, as
::: opposed to saccharin being 300 x sweeter. I can easily use a whole
::: pack of Splenda in my coffee but anything more than about a third
::: of a pack of Sweet 'n Low is way too sweet.
::
:: You're getting way less actual sucralose chemical in your splenda
:: packet than saccharin in your pink packet. The difference is made
:: up in bulk filler.

i.e., carbs. The carb impact for both packs is about the same since there
is not much AS in either of them.

Saccharin also tastes different with different people due to each individuals
body chemistry. Some, saccharin is bitter, some it is sweet. The strength of
sweetness varies among individuals.

Myway

I can remember many years ago, when the only diet sodas available were
sweetened with saccharin, thought it tasted awful. Then the first time I
did Atkins and went into ketosis, I found that I suddenly could not
notice that aftertaste. I don't know that it was the ketosis, maybe just
habituation, but ever since then I really can't tell the difference and
at times have had to have a friend taste-test a soda if I'm not sure
about it when we go out.

Personally, I miss cyclamates, which I notice they didn't mention.

Lee

Myway wrote:

Roger Zoul wrote:

revek wrote:
:: "Garypa" wrote in message
::
::: Interesting comparisons, but I found it hard to believe the
::: assertion that sucralose is 600 times sweeter than sugar, as
::: opposed to saccharin being 300 x sweeter. I can easily use a whole
::: pack of Splenda in my coffee but anything more than about a third
::: of a pack of Sweet 'n Low is way too sweet.
::
:: You're getting way less actual sucralose chemical in your splenda
:: packet than saccharin in your pink packet. The difference is made
:: up in bulk filler.

i.e., carbs. The carb impact for both packs is about the same since there
is not much AS in either of them.

Saccharin also tastes different with different people due to each individuals
body chemistry. Some, saccharin is bitter, some it is sweet. The strength of
sweetness varies among individuals.

Myway

I do remember the "pioneering" diet soda --Tab, though I don't know if that
originally had cyclamates before moving into saccharin. Dr. Atkins mentioned
favoring cyclamates in his earliest book, if I recall.

"Garypa" wrote in message

I do remember the "pioneering" diet soda --Tab, though I don't know
if that originally had cyclamates before moving into saccharin. Dr.
Atkins mentioned favoring cyclamates in his earliest book, if I
recall.


Unfortunately banned in the US. Probably able to be ordered/shipped
from Canada though.
--
revek
Om began to feel the acute depression that steals over every realist in
the presence of an optimist. {Small Gods, 1992}