{"id":5211,"date":"2016-09-23T08:30:50","date_gmt":"2016-09-23T14:30:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.ulprospector.com\/knowledge\/?p=5211"},"modified":"2016-10-10T10:36:39","modified_gmt":"2016-10-10T16:36:39","slug":"fbn-low-calorie-artificial-sweeteners","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ulprospector.ul.com\/5211\/fbn-low-calorie-artificial-sweeteners\/","title":{"rendered":"Should Consumers Trust Low-Calorie Artificial Sweeteners? Science Says Yes – Mostly"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Learn
Copyright: amaviael \/ 123RF Stock Photo<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Fizzy sodas, light and fluffy yogurts, creamy puddings, a piping hot vanilla latte – pretty much anything can be made sugar-free these days. And now formulators have a variety of choices beyond the most common: saccharin<\/a>, sucralose<\/a>, and aspartame<\/a>. According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), \u201csix high-intensity sweeteners are FDA-approved as food additives in the United States: saccharin, aspartame, acesulfame potassium<\/a> (Ace-K), sucralose, neotame<\/a>, and advantame<\/a>,\u201d when used in moderation.<\/p>\n

As seen in the FDA statement, artificial sweeteners<\/a> are also called \u201chigh-intensity sweeteners,\u201d because they are many times sweeter than regular white cane sugar, yet add virtually no calories to one\u2019s diet and do not spike blood sugar levels. The Sugar and Sweetener Guide<\/a> offers some charts on sweetener values, including the calories per gram, the sweetness relative to sugar and the glycemic index for each sweetener.<\/p>\n

Artificial sweeteners are the fastest growing segment of the sweetener market. Growing health issues, such as diabetes and obesity, have led to a greater demand for low-calorie sweeteners. The market for high-intensity sweeteners is expected to reach nearly $1.9 billion in 2017, says Natural Products Insider.<\/p>\n

The Safety of Artificial Sweeteners<\/h3>\n

With the variety of sweeteners, and increased scrutiny on the effects of artificial ingredients as a whole, many consumers question if it\u2019s safe to consume food and beverage products that include them. According to FDA, and multiple scientific studies, including one by the American Cancer Society, it is.<\/p>\n

In 2002, two U.S. citizens petitioned FDA, requesting a ban on the use of aspartame as a food additive, citing multiple adverse effects. In its 2014 response letter, FDA stated that the petition \u201ccontains no substantive scientific evidence demonstrating that aspartame’s use presents a public health risk…the anecdotal accounts of adverse effects of aspartame cited in the citizen petition are not supported by scientific evidence.\u201d<\/p>\n

Also in 2014, the Journal of Nutrition published a study on 100,442 adult men and women, and found that daily consumption of artificially or sugar-sweetened carbonated beverages, or aspartame, is not associated with an increased risk of cancer (non-Hodgkin lymphoma, specifically). This study was affiliated with the Epidemiology Research Program of the American Cancer Society.<\/p>\n

The National Cancer Institute, a U.S. governmental agency, agrees, stating that \u201cthese sweeteners have not provided clear evidence of an association with cancer in humans.\u201d Studies in the 1970s linked saccharin to cancerous tumors in male rats, yet later studies revealed that those results applied only to rats; the ingredient did not produce the same results in humans.<\/p>\n

Conversely, other studies are less conclusive. Some recent studies (again with mice) have indicated that daily consumption of diet (artificially sweetened) soda might lead to a higher risk for weight gain, as well as metabolic syndrome and Type 2 diabetes.<\/p>\n

A recent 2016 study in Australia suggests that the brain essentially rewires after continued usage of the sweeteners, producing an increased appetite. Yet another study, however, points out that \u201cit remains difficult to establish the strength of the association and the independence from other potentially confounding factors.\u201d Many researchers agree more research is needed to prove a causal link.<\/p>\n

Regardless of the consistency of findings, there is no doubt there will be continued demand for low-calorie options for the tasty treats people often cannot resist.<\/p>\n

Going Natural<\/h3>\n

A handful of products have launched recently that make use of natural low-calorie sweeteners. ChocZero by Snapfit<\/a> incorporates monk fruit and a slightly sweet vegetable fiber to try to avoid the \u201cfunky aftertaste\u201d of some artificial sweeteners.<\/p>\n

Brazilian candy manufacturer Riclan recently launched a \u201cnaturals\u201d version of their best-selling product<\/a>, Freegells cough drops, incorporating natural flavors and colors. They also have plans to develop a sugar-free gum marketed to children.<\/p>\n

Share your experience<\/h3>\n

Have you changed product formulations to include sugar-free alternatives? Are you using any other natural alternatives like stevia or monk fruit? Do you have any tips for formulating with these products? Leave a comment below and share with the community.<\/p>\n

Searching for the right artificial sweetener for your product?<\/h3>\n

Prospector has listings for low-calorie products from global suppliers. Find technical data, order samples and more now\u2026<\/p>\n


\nClick Here
\n<\/a><\/p>\n

Further reading:<\/h3>\n