Prospective Sweeteners

Posted by & filed under Sugar Substitutes.

In addition to the low-calorie sweeteners awaiting U.S. approval for use in foods and beverages, there are a number of additional prospective low-calorie sweeteners. These include the following:

Dihydrochalcones (DHCs)

Non-caloric sweeteners derived from bioflavonoids of citrus fruits. Approximately 300 to 2,000 times sweeter than sucrose. Delayed sweet taste; licorice aftertaste. Currently “Neo-DHC,” synthesized from seville oranges, has greatest potential for food applications. About 1,500 times sweeter than sucrose. Potential use in chewing gum, candies, mouthwash, toothpaste, some fruit juices, some pharmaceuticals.

Status: approved for use in the European Union and Zimbabwe. Approved for use in the U.S. for flavoring products such as baked goods, beverages, chewing gum, frozen dairy products, candy and sauces.

Glycyrrhizin

Non-caloric extract of licorice root. 50-100 times sweeter than sucrose. Used as a flavoring for tobacco, pharmaceuticals and some confectionery products; used as a foaming agent in some non-alcoholic beverages. Pronounced licorice flavor limits wide-spread use.

Status: approved for use in the U.S. as a flavor and flavor enhancer.

Thaumatin (TalinTM)

Mixture of sweet-tasting proteins from a West African fruit. Approximately 2,000-3,000 times sweeter than sucrose. Taste develops slowly and leaves licorice-like aftertaste. Acts synergistically with saccharin, acesulfame K and stevioside. May be useful as a flavor extender for some pharmaceutical and cosmetic products; other potential applications include beverages and desserts. Cannot be used in products to be baked or boiled.

Status: approved for use in foods and beverages in Israel, Japan and the European Union. In the U.S. approved as a flavor enhancer for products such as beverages, jams and jellies, condiments, milk products, yogurt, cheese, instant coffee and tea, and chewing gum.

Tagatose

Posted by & filed under Tagatose.

Tagatose is a low carbohydrate functional sweetener, very similar to fructose in structure. It is naturally occurring and can be found in some dairy products. Tagatose has a physical bulk similar to sucrose or table sugar and is almost as sweet. However, it is metabolized differently, has a minimal effect on blood glucose and insulin levels and furthermore provides a prebiotic effect. Tagatose is especially suitable as a flavor enhancer or as a low carbohydrate sweetener.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has accepted the “Generally Recognized as Safe” (GRAS) notification for tagatose. It was launched in the U.S. market in May 2003, and is also used as a general-purpose sweetener in Korea, Australia and New Zealand. Tagatose is manufactured and marketed worldwide by SweetGredients GmbH & Co., and is sold in the U.S. through Arla Foods Ingredients amba. It can be used in ready-to-eat cereals, diet soft drinks, health bars, frozen yogurt/nonfat ice cream, soft confectionary, hard confectionary, frosting and chewing gum.

How Tagatose Is Made

D-Tagatose is made via a patented procedure from lactose in a two-step process. In the first step, lactose is hydrolyzed to glucose and galactose. In the second step, galactose is isomerized to D-tagatose by adding calcium hydroxide. D-tagatose is then further purified by means of demineralization and chromatography. The final product is a white crystalline substance that is greater than 99 percent pure.

How Tagatose Is Used

Because of its great taste, low carbohydrate impact and high functionality, tagatose can improve the quality of a wide range of foods when used either for its healthy effects at high doses or as a flavor enhancer at low doses. Tagatose creates unique opportunities to develop the healthy foods market by improving taste and enabling strong claims.

Tagatose can be used as a flavor enhancer. It creates a synergistic flavor-enhancing effect in combination with high intensity sweeteners and is therefore ideal for diet soft drinks giving a regular taste. Numerous application tests have demonstrated that tagatose greatly improves the flavor profile and mouthfeel of diet soft drinks when combined with aspartame, acesulfame-K and sucralose. Additionally, this combination also speeds up sweetness onset and reduces bitterness.

Furthermore, tagatose enhances specific flavors in various applications, such as mint and lemon flavor in sugar free chewing gum and mints. It also boosts creaminess and toffee flavor. These flavor enhancing benefits can be further exploited in a number of other products, including diet yogurts and tabletop formulations.

The physical properties of tagatose ensure ease of use in a wide range of functional foods, drinks and other applications. With the sweetness of sucrose, it can substitute sugar or polyols without significantly changing the processing parameters.

Tagatose is pH stable in acidic applications and can thus be used in products such as carbonated beverages as well as yogurts. And because of its easy crystallization properties, tagatose is ideal for use in frostings.

Due to its bulk and sweetness, tagatose can be used in small amounts in baking and products subjected to high temperatures to increase the moistness and flavor, while maintaining sweetness. However, the processing and preparing of foods containing tagatose must accommodate certain temperature reactivity, as tagatose containing products “brown” and caramelize more readily than sucrose containing baked goods.

How the Body Uses Tagatose

The steps in the metabolism of tagatose are identical to those for fructose or fruit sugar but tagatose is incompletely absorbed. Only 15-20 percent of tagatose is absorbed in the small intestine. The major part of ingested tagatose is fermented in the colon by indigenous microflora, resulting in the production of short-chain fatty acids. The short chain fatty acids are absorbed almost completely and metabolized.

Extensive human testing has been conducted on tagatose to ensure its safety and human tolerance. With certain sensitive individuals, mild gastrointestinal discomfort (e.g., flatulence and laxation) may occur as with other low digestible carbohydrates.

Benefits

Very low blood glucose and insulin response: Because tagatose is incompletely absorbed, it has a minimal impact on blood glucose (low glycemic effect) and insulin levels. The low glycemic effect of tagatose is confirmed in several clinical studies. A clinical study with an oral intake of 75 g of tagatose showed no increase in plasma glucose or serum insulin in either normal persons or people with Type II diabetes. Thus, tagatose is a useful tool for those interested in a low glycemic health benefit, particularly consumers endeavoring to manage or prevent obesity, diabetes, etc.

Prebiotic effect: Clinical research has shown that tagatose acts as a prebiotic, demonstrated by the increase of “good” bacteria in the large intestine and colon after consumption. Tagatose selectively promotes the production of butyrate and lactic acid bacteria, which are essential to maintaining a healthy digestive system. Like dietary fibers, tagatose is broken down by the gut bacteria to short chain fatty acids (SCFA). SCFA have the advantage of decreasing acidity in the large intestine and some SCFA are recognized as beneficial for a healthy epithelium in the large intestine. The unique combination of sweetness with the prebiotic effect enables creation of great tasting healthy products

Lower Caloric Value: For food labeling purposes in the U.S., an energy value of only 1.5 calories per gram may be used for tagatose. When using less than 3.33 g per serving of tagatose, foods and beverages in the U.S. are allowed to carry a “zero calorie” claim. When the amount does not exceed 0.5 g per serving of tagatose, foods and beverages in the U.S. are allowed to carry a “sugar free” claim.

Does Not Promote Tooth Decay: Tagatose does not promote dental caries. The conditions that normally lead to tooth decay after eating sugar and other fermentable carbohydrates do not occur after consuming tagatose. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the use of a dental health claim for products containing tagatose as long as the retail product complies with all the requirements for a tooth-friendly product. The approved dental health claim may state, “Tagatose sugar does not promote tooth decay” or “Tagatose sugar may reduce the risk of tooth decay.” However, tagatose-containing products may not be labeled sugar free unless they contain less than 0.5 g per serving sugar.

Facts About Tagatose

  • Gives flavor enhancement in combination with other sweeteners.
  • Does not significantly increase blood glucose or insulin levels
  • Has a prebiotic effect.
  • Provides a maximum of 1.5 calories per gram.
  • Does not promote dental caries.
  • Provides the natural taste and texture of sugar.
  • Can be used in a variety of foods and beverages.

Regulatory Status

Under the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) “GRAS notification system,” the manufacturer of tagatose made a self-determined Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) declaration for the sweetener and notified the FDA. After evaluating the GRAS notification submitted for tagatose, the FDA has accepted the GRAS notification. Tagatose may now be used in the U.S. food supply.

The World Health Organization’s Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) evaluated the safety of tagatose in June 2004 stating there is no need for a limited acceptable daily intake (ADI) of tagatose. JECFA has, therefore, established an ADI of “not specified,” the safest category in which JECFA can place a food ingredient.

Tagatose was approved for use in foods and beverages by the Korean FDA in 2003, and was approved for use in foods and beverages in Australia and New Zealand in April 2004. Other regulatory approvals are under way in major markets worldwide.

References

Bertelsen, H. et al. (2003): “Blunting effect of D-tagatose on blood glucose when administered orally with glucose in volunteer donors of boundary glycemic levels.” In preparation for publication to Japan Clinical Nutrition Journal.

Bertelsen, H. et al. (2001): “Tagatose.” Alternative Sweeteners: Third Edition, Revised and Expanded. Ed. Lyn O’Brien Nabors, 105-127.

Boesch, C. et al. (2001). “Effect of oral D-tagatose on liver volume and hepatic glycogen accumulation in healthy male volunteers.” Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 33, 257-267.

Buemann, B. et al. (2000): “D-tagatose, a stereoisomer of D-fructose, increases blood uric acid concentrations.” Metabolisms. Vol. 49, No 8 (August), 969-976.

Donner, T.W., Wilber J.F., Ostrowski D.: “D-tagatose, a novel hexose: Acute effects on carbohydrate tolerance in subjects with and without type 2 diabetes.” Diabetes. Obesity and Metabolism. 1999: 1, 285-291.

Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives, Sixty-Third Meeting. Geneva, 8-17 June 2004. Summary and Conclusions.
http://www.who.int/ipcs/publications/jecfa/en/Summary63final.pdf

U.S. Food and Drug Administration, “Health Claims: Dietary Noncariogenic Carbohydrate Sweeteners and Dental Caries” in: Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Government Printing Office, 2003, Sec. 101.80.

Cyclamate

Posted by & filed under Cyclamate.

 

Cyclamate, discovered in 1937, is a non-caloric sweetener approximately 30 times as sweet as sucrose. Like other low-calorie sweeteners, cyclamate is of benefit to those seeking to control weight, manage diabetes, or help prevent tooth decay. Cyclamates, whether in the form of sodium cyclamate or calcium cyclamate, are stable and soluble. Cyclamate is used as a tabletop sweetener, in diet beverages, and in other low-calorie foods. In addition, cyclamate is useful as a flavor enhancer. Cyclamate’s heat stability, high order of sweetness and other technological advantages also make it a good flavoring agent for many pharmaceutical preparations and toiletries.

Benefits

When cyclamate is combined with other low-calorie sweeteners, a synergistic effect results–that is the two sweeteners in combination taste sweeter than what normally would be expected from the sum of the individual sweeteners. Additionally, the aftertaste sometimes associated with the use of a single sweetener can be masked by combining sweetening agents. For example, the mixture of 10 parts cyclamate to one part saccharin is a combination which was widely used in foods and beverages during the 1960s. Cyclamate can serve as an excellent complement to other low-calorie sweeteners which are available and, particularly because of its unique synergistic sweetening properties, makes possible a wider variety of good-tasting low-calorie products. Cyclamate is stable in heat and cold and has good shelf life. Its solubility in liquids enables use in beverages.

Safety

The scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports the safety of cyclamate and assists in determining safe levels of human consumption. Specifically:

  • Two dozen studies demonstrate that even after ingestion of high doses of cyclamate throughout the lives of laboratory animals, cyclamate does not cause cancer;
  • More than 70 studies, comprising an unusually comprehensive group of mutagenicity tests and incorporating at least ten different testing methodologies, demonstrate that cyclamate is not mutagenic;
  • Numerous studies of human populations have found no excess cancer risk — this despite the fact that subjects consumed cyclamate, as well as saccharin, for a number of years.

The distinguished scientists of the World Health Organization, Food and Agriculture Organization’s Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) have, over the past 10 years, consistently determined human cyclamate use is safe. In 1982, JECFA increased the Acceptable Daily Intake level for cyclamate use almost threefold, following a review of recent scientific evidence. The establishment of an acceptable daily intake of cyclamate further assures safety at human consumption levels.

Regulatory Status

The conclusion that cyclamate can be safely consumed has been reached by an increasing number of governments throughout the world. More than 50 countries around the world, having assessed the wealth of scientific evidence, have concluded that cyclamate can be used safely and have made it available for various uses. This includes Europe, where the European Community has placed cyclamate on its approved sweeteners list.

Despite that support, and the overwhelming scientific evidence indicating cyclamate’s safety, cyclamate remains restricted in some countries. The controversy regarding cyclamate is based principally upon one experiment in which bladder tumors were found in some rats fed extremely large doses of cyclamate and other substances. As a result, the United States banned cyclamate in 1970 and some countries restricted its use. The rat study has been criticized by a number of scientists, including the study director himself. Since 1970, new scientific evidence has become available and several countries have reconsidered the use of cyclamate. For example, in Canada, the Minister of Health and Welfare reinstated certain uses of cyclamate after concluding in 1978 that “new and more sophisticated testing procedures have led to a general agreement that cyclamates are not carcinogenic.”

A petition for cyclamate reapproval is currently under review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The petition seeks reapproval primarily in light of three sets of facts: 1) scientists from the American Statistical Association and the Society of Toxicology have called upon FDA to reassess the statistical and scientific principles relied upon in its 1980 decision not to reapprove cyclamate; 2) new scientific evidence, including some 75 new studies, demonstrates the safety of cyclamate for human use and assists in determining safe consumption levels; and 3) JECFA has determined human cyclamate use is safe in its 1978, 1980 and 1982 reports, and has found sufficient data to establish a safe human consumption level.

In 1984, FDA’s Cancer Assessment Committee (CAC) reviewed the scientific evidence and reached the following conclusion: “[T]he collective weight of the many experiments . . . indicates that cyclamate is not carcinogenic.” In June 1985, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) reaffirmed the CAC’s conclusion, noting “the totality of the evidence from studies in animals does not indicate that cyclamate or its major metabolite cyclohexylamine is carcinogenic by itself.” Before cyclamate is returned to the marketplace, FDA has noted it will conduct an extensive review of the NAS report and resolve other questions which relate primarily to the acceptable daily intake for cyclamate.

Summary

Substantial scientific evidence supports cyclamate’s safe use by the millions of consumers who seek to control their intake of carbohydrate-based sweeteners and calories. A favorable decision on the current petition for reapproval would provide for a greater variety of low-calorie foods and beverages to help meet consumer demand. No low-calorie sweetener is perfect for all uses. However, with several low-calorie sweeteners available, each can be used in the applications for which it is best suited. Also, when used in combination (as would most often be the case with cyclamate), the strengths of one sweetener can compensate for the limitations of another, providing for increased stability, improved taste, lower production costs and more product choices for the consumer.

 

For more information visit www.cyclamate.org.

Fructose

Posted by & filed under Fructose.

Fructose is a natural simple sugar found in fruits, honey, and vegetables.  In its pure form, fructose has been used as a sweetener since the mid 1850s and has advantages for certain groups, including people with diabetes and those trying to control their weight.  Of course, fructose has been consumed for centuries in foods we still eat.  It is known as a simple sugar because it is a single sweetening molecule.  Fructose is also known as a monosaccharide.

High fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is also a sweetener and is used to sweeten foods and beverages.  However, HFCS is not the same as fructose.  HFCS is a mixture of fructose and glucose, made by an enzymatic process from glucose syrup from corn.  The most common forms are HFCS-42 and HFCS-55, which contain 42% fructose (and 58% glucose) or 55% (and 45% glucose). Table sugar (sucrose) has 50% fructose (and 50% glucose) and so is very similar to HFCS.

Misinformation about fructose recently appeared in the media.  This misinformation alleges obesity and negative health consequences from the consumption of HFCS and fructose.  Many incorrectly use the terms “fructose” and “HFCS” interchangeably, confusing the public as well as health and nutrition professionals.  It is important to be aware of the differences between these sweeteners.

Fructose

Fructose is one of the main types of sugars found in fruits such as apples, in fruit juices, and in honey.  It is also a component of sucrose (table sugar) in equal quantity to glucose to which it is linked.  As with table sugar, fructose can be bought at the supermarket; both can be used in the same ways in home cooking and processing.  Hence fructose is found also in processed foods such as desserts, dairy products, and preserves.

An important difference is that fructose is up to twice as sweet as sucrose, and sweeter than HFCS.  This means less fructose can be used to achieve the same level of sweetness.  Consequently fewer calories are consumed from foods of similar sweetness where fructose replaces sucrose or HFCS.

Unlike table sugar or HFCS, fructose does not cause a rapid rise and subsequent large fall in blood glucose levels, which means it has a low glycemic load or glycemic index (GI).  Glycemic index (glycemic load per gram carbohydrate) is a measure of how carbohydrates affect blood glucose concentrations.  As expected, glucose itself has a high value because it is rapidly absorbed into the blood stream; its GI or glycemic load per gram is 100.  In contrast, the glycemic load per gram fructose is only 19, while that of table sugar is 65 – midway between its component parts glucose and fructose.  HFCS has a similar GI value to table sugar, though its precise value depends on the fructose content of the HFCS that is used.

When foods high in sugar are eaten, blood sugar rises rapidly to a peak.  The higher the rise the greater the fall, which then quickly results in a dip below normal blood sugar levels, and may arouse appetite.  Some researchers believe that carbohydrate foods with a low glycemic effect have health benefits, which remains controversial.  The World Health Organization concludes that low GI foods may help to prevent obesity, weight gain and type II diabetes.  The U.S. Institute of Medicine made no recommendations on GI due to a lack of sufficient evidence of benefit long term against the economic costs of change towards low glycemic carbohydrate diets.

Low glycemic carbohydrate foods may be of benefit to people with diabetes, as they can help to prevent surges in blood glucose. While the American Diabetes Association recognizes that fructose produces a lower blood glucose response when used in foods in place of sucrose or starch, it does not believe GI to be sufficiently important at this time to merit changes to its existing advice on carbohydrate exchanges.

High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS)

The name “high fructose corn syrup” is used because HFCS has a higher content of fructose compared to “regular” corn syrup, yet it contains a substantial amount of glucose and may be more glucose than fructose.  HFCS and table sugar (sucrose) usually contain similar amounts of glucose and fructose.

HFCS is obtainable mainly in two forms:

  • HFCS 55 contains 55% fructose and 45% glucose. It is commonly used in soft drinks, and is very similar in sweetness to table sugar.
  • HFCS 42 contains 42% fructose and 58% glucose.  It is commonly used in canned fruits, ice cream, desserts and other sweetened processed foods.

Although high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) and fructose are often confused as being the same, they are not interchangeable as the two sweeteners are quite distinct.  There is also a difference between table sugar and HFCS, though this appears to be of little consequence.  It is that the glucose and fructose in table sugar are linked chemically and so table sugar needs digesting before absorption can occur.  This digestive process occurs very rapidly for sucrose and so there is no significant difference in the overall rate of absorption.  Because both table sugar and HFCS are absorbed into the blood stream as glucose and fructose, their subsequent metabolism is identical.

Obesity and Diabetes

Some have suggested that a rise in the use of HFCS in the United States (US) over the past 30 years could explain the rise in obesity and type II diabetes, and that this is due to increased fructose consumption.  However, there is no scientific support for this suggestion.

In the US, table sugar accounted for 83% of all sweeteners used in 1970, and for only 43% in 1997.  During the same period, use of HFCS increased from 16% to 56%.  However, as table sugar and HFCS contain similar quantities of fructose, the overall level of fructose in the US diet has stayed unchanged.

As in the US, Europe has experienced a dramatic rise in the prevalence of obesity and type II diabetes. Unlike the US, the production of HFCS is controlled in the European Union (EU).  This means that far less HFCS is consumed in Europe than in the US.  As a result, the increased rates of obesity and type II diabetes in the EU cannot be explained by increased consumption of either fructose or HFCS.

The ultimate cause of obesity is consuming more calories than are expended during rest and physical activity.  In view of the wide choice of foods now available and of the sedentary lifestyles in the US, a specific food or ingredient cannot be blamed for increased incidence of obesity and diabetes in the US or Europe.  Physical activity or the lack thereof is an important factor along with the amount of calories consumed.

A group of experts convened during 2004 by Virginia Tech’s Center for Food and Nutrition Policy and the University of Maryland’s Joint Institute for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition has concluded, “Currently, there is no convincing evidence to support a link between HFCS consumption and overweight/obesity.  There is also no evidence to suggest that humans absorb or metabolize HFCS any differently than sucrose.”

Appetite

Appetite and the amount of food consumed are influenced by a range of complex factors.  External influences can override the body’s own control, for example eating with friends for social benefits or experiencing a wide variety of foods or just eating for pleasure.

Though it has been claimed that fructose does not suppress appetite in the same way as other sugars, fructose does not cause rapid surges and dips in blood glucose levels, which is one factor thought to stimulate eating.

Triglycerides

Recent news stories have focused on the potential effect of fructose on triglyceride levels in blood.  Differences in the observations make it easy for individuals to fall into the trap of justifying a belief rather than scrutinizing and refuting a hypothesis.  Consequently, stories arise that overemphasize a few studies which claim effects for high levels of fructose while largely ignoring others that find no effect or even an opposite effect, both in the morning before eating (fasted state) and after a meal (post-prandial state).  These stories fail to account for the high variability in circulatory triglyceride responses to diet and there is over-interpretation and extrapolation from studies in animals with a different metabolism to humans.

Malabsorption

All carbohydrates, even rapidly digestible sucrose, cause abdominal discomfort when consumed to excess.  Some individuals may exceed their capacity for fructose absorption if large amounts are eaten.  Under such circumstances, fructose may be associated with abdominal complaints, such as bloating and flatulence.

Conclusions

  • Although some imply that HFCS and fructose are the same, they are different sweeteners.
  • Consuming HFCS has essentially the same results as consuming table sugar (sucrose).
  • Fructose is sweeter than sugar and so less can be used to sweeten foods and beverages.  This helps to reduce calories in foods and drinks when used in appropriate product formulations, and may reduce subsequent arousal of eating.
  • Obesity and diabetes are unlikely to be caused by one particular food or food ingredient.
  • Fructose does not cause surges and dips in blood glucose levels so it may be helpful to people with diabetes to reduce post-prandial glycemia and to help limit calories in foods requiring bulk sweeteners.

For more information visit FructoseFacts.org.

References
American Diabetes Association. Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes. Diabetes Care, Vol 28 Supp 1, 2005.
Anon. Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy, Carbohydrates, Fiber, Fat, Protein and Amino Acids (Macronutrients) www.nap.edu/openbook/0309085373/html. The National Academy of Sciences, 2002.
Bray G.A., Nielsen S.J., Popkin B.M. Consumption of high-fructose corn syrup in beverages may play a role in the epidemic of obesity. Am J Clin Nutr, 79, 537-543, 2004.
Buck A.W. High Fructose Corn Syrup. In: Alternative Sweeteners, Third Edition, Lyn O’Brien Nabors, ed., Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, 2001.
Forbes A.L., Bowman B.L., eds. Health effects of dietary fructose. Supplement to Am J Clin Nutr, 58, 721S, 1993.
Havel P.J. Dietary Fructose: Implications for Dysregulation of Energy Homeostasis and Lipid/Carbohydrate Metabolism. Nutrition Reviews, 63, 133-157, 2005.
Hein G.L., Storey M.L., Lineback D.R. Executive Summary:  Ceres® Workshop on the Highs and Lows of High Fructose Corn Syrup. 2004.
Jürgens H., et al. Consuming Fructose-sweetened Beverages Increases Body Adiposity in Mice. Obesity Research, 13, 1146-1156, 2005.
Sheard N.F., Clark N.G., Brand-Miller J.C., et al. Dietary carbohydrate (amount and type) in the prevention and management of diabetes. A statement of the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care, 27(9), 2266-2271, 2004.
White J.S. and Osberger T.F. Crystalline Fructose. In: Alternative Sweeteners, Third Edition, Lyn O’Brien Nabors, ed., Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, 2001.

Expert Opinions – Saccharin

Posted by & filed under Health Professionals, Saccharin.

Scientists/Regulators/Health Groups Support Saccharin’s Safety

The extensive research on saccharin has been reviewed by many international scientists, including a wide range of British, Canadian, German, Swiss, Scandinavian and American researchers, and by health groups interested in low-calorie sweeteners. These reviews have led to significant statements in support of saccharin. Comments include:

Health Groups

“Substituting non-nutritive sweeteners for sugars added to foods and beverages may help people reach and maintain a healthy body weight – as long as the substitution doesn’t lead to eating additional calories later as compensation. For people with diabetes, non-nutritive sweeteners used alone or in foods and beverages remain an option and when used appropriately can aid in glucose control.”

— American Heart Association and American Diabetes Association, “Nonnutritive Sweeteners: Current Use and Health Perspectives,” 2012.

“Thus, the consumption of acesulfame potassium, aspartame, saccharin, sucralose and neotame within acceptable daily intakes is safe during pregnancy.”

— Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (Formerly American Dietetic Association), “Position of the American Dietetic Association: Use of Nutritive and Nonnutritive Sweeteners,” 2004.

“Several years ago, experiments on rats suggested that saccharin might cause cancer. Since then, however, sudies of primates and humans have shown no increased risk of cancer from either saccharin or aspartame.”

— American Cancer Society, 1996 Dietary Guidelines

“The Council on Scientific Affairs recommends that the AMA support the moratorium on the saccharin ban, since the evidence of its carcinogenicity in humans has not been forthcoming”

— American Medical Association Council on Scientific Affairs report, published in The Journal of the American Medical Association, November 8, 1985

“At current intake levels saccharin is assumed safe for the general public and is approved for use in more than 90 countries”

— American Dietetic Association “Use of Nutritive and Nonnutritive Sweeteners” position statement, July 1993

“Evidence gathered from the numerous animal and human studies of saccharin does not suggest that there is any significant risk to the human population from the normal use of this sweetener. ACSH believes that saccharin should be regarded as a safe food ingredient.”

— American Council on Science and Health report, “Low-Calorie Sweeteners,” March 1993

“Common sense dictates that if there is any cancer risk from saccharin consumption in ‘normal’ quantities by humans, it is negligible and can be ignored.”

— Members of the British Medical Association were advised in the British Medical Journal

“The slight risk (if any) of saccharin is more than offset by the risk of obesity, cardiovascular disease and diabetes.”

— One of the several conclusions agreed upon by scientists attending the Conference on Sugar Substitutes, sponsored by the European Research Group for Oral Biology (ERGOB) in Geneva, Switzerland, 1978

“The major benefits of saccharin are an improved quality of life, low cost, and stability at warm temperatures. A small risk for bladder cancer continues to be found in male rats exposed to high doses of saccharin. However, epidemiologic studies show no evidence of a carcinogenic effect in man.”

— American Diabetes Association, July/August 1987

“Artificially sweetened beverages and desserts have offered an acceptable alternative to the life of restrictions forced on a diabetic child . . . Parents of diabetics are concerned that in a world without an artificial sweetener for medicines, for cooking and baking the all important birthday cakes and holiday treats, for sodas and snacks, our children will now have an even more difficult medical, social and emotional adjustment.”

— Juvenile Diabetes Foundation, statement submitted for the Hearing Record to the Subcommittee on Health and Scientific Research of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, May 9, 1979

“With currently available data, the Society still believes the benefits of saccharin use far outweigh its alleged risks.”

— American Society of Bariatric Physicians, March 21, 1985

“For people who are interested in weight control, and others who must watch what they eat for health reasons, saccharin makes life easier.”

— Lois Lindauer, founder and international director, The Diet Workshop, May 17, 1979

Regulators

“The actual risk, if any, of saccharin to humans still appears to be slight.”

— Frank Young, Commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, April 2, 1985

“Based on the results of numerous epidemiological studies, the conclusions of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), and over eight decades of consumption without evidence related to human disease, it can be concluded that the evidence is inadequate to suggest that saccharin consumption may significantly increase the risk of bladder cancer in humans. Therefore, the majority view of toxicologists is that saccharin at low doses does not pose a health risk for humans.”

— Health and Welfare Canada, Health Protection Branch, December 5, 1991

“The Committee accepted that on the basis of data reviewed to date, it would be inappropriate to consider the bladder tumours induced in male rats by sodium saccharin to be relevant to the assessment of toxicological hazards to humans.”

— World Health Organization’s Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives, 1993

“Saccharin remains a vitally important substance for many Americans who depend on it as asugar substitute. Though we have developed other sweeteners, none duplicates all of its particular virtues, and none is a complete substitute for it.”

— Senator Orrin Hatch, Chairman, Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee, April 1985

“Epidemiological studies have also not established any evidence that bladder cancer in man is associated with saccharin intake.”

— European Economic Communities, “Report of the Scientific Committee for Food on Sweeteners,” December 11, 1987

Scientists

“Based on the evaluation of the NCI/NTP data base plus numerous other studies, it is clear that some chemicals that cause cancer in rodent models pose little or no hazard for humans, sodium saccharin being a classic example.”

— Boorman, Maronpot and Eustis, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, in a 1994 paper published in Toxicologic Pathology.

“As far as scientists were concerned, for instance, a 1981 epidemiologic study put to rest a suggestion that saccharine (sic) can cause bladder cancer–one of the few cases in which epidemiology had managed to put an end to a suspected association.”

— From a July 14, 1995 article in Science, “Epidemiology Faces Its Limits.”

“Based on mechanism and dose, the effect of saccharin appears to be confined to rats, and is not anticipated to be a factor in humans. This fits with the extensive epidemiological data which has thus far not shown any significant relationship between artificial sweetener ingestion and the development of bladder cancer.”

— Dr. Samuel Cohen, University of Nebraska Medical Center, in a presentation of his research at the annual meeting of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, April 5-9, 1992

“The cancer risk of the carbohydrates that saccharin replaces are (sic) several hundred times greater than the (alleged) cancer risk for saccharin.”

— Dr. Morris Cranmer, a noted toxicologist and former director of the National Center for Toxicological Research of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), who was assigned the task by former FDA Commissioner Kennedy of evaluating the risks associated with saccharin use, in Saccharin, 1980

“We judge that most readers will find the case against saccharin unimpressive.”

— Editorial comment in The Lancet, a British medical journal, September 17, 1977

“In the total study group, there was no evidence of increased risk with long-term use of AS (artificial sweeteners) in any form or with use that began decades ago.

— Preliminary results of the largest-ever bladder cancer study (9,000 individuals), conducted in the United States by the National Cancer Institute, December 1979

“Ingestion of non-nutritive sweeteners, at least at the moderate dietary levels reported by our patient sample, is not associated with an increased risk of bladder cancer.”

— Dr. Irving Kessler, John Hopkins University, U.S.A., who compared saccharin and cyclamate consumption among 519 bladder cancer patients with a similar number of individuals without the disease, 1978

“The available laboratory data suggest that saccharin, in normal human use, is not carcinogenic. . . There is, at present, no epidemiologic evidence to suggest an increase in bladder cancer in the U.S.”

— Benjamin L. Van Duuren, Institute of Environmental Medicine, New York University Medical Center, reported in the Journal of Environmental Pathology and Toxicology, 1980

“Saccharin is not a carcinogen. Period. Certainly not to man.”

— Concluding remarks of Dr. Michael B. Shimkin, University of California School “… of Medicine at San Diego, at the International Study Center for Environmental Health Sciences’ symposium, “An Academic Review of the Safety Assessment of Artificial Sweeteners,” May 13, 1981

“…the present level of exposure of humans to saccharin, through its use as a food additive, presents an insignificant cancer risk.”

— Report of an international panel of scientists which met at Duke University Medical Center in May 1983 to review relevant research and assess the safety of saccharin

“Thus, saccharin produces profound biochemical and physiological changes in the rat at high doses which do not occur in humans under normal patterns of use. . . . The appearance of tumors in rats seems to be a species- and organ-specific phenomenon for which there is at present no explanation.”

— Report of an international panel of scientists which met at Duke University Medical Center in May 1983 to review relevant research and assess the safety of saccharin

“No chemical additive for food has been tested in as many laboratories, for as long a period, in as many species of animals (including man) and in successive generations, and yet has been found to be as innocuous as saccharin.”

— Bernard Oser, Ph.D., noted toxicologist and former president and director of the Food and Drug Research Laboratories from his study, “Highlights in the History of Saccharin Toxicology,” published in Food and Chemical Toxicology, April/May 1985

“Few chemicals have been studied epidemiologically to the same extent as artificial sweeteners have been. The remarkable approximation to unity of the summary relative risk from all studies is impressive, and one wonders how many common foodstuffs would be found on such testing to be as safe as that.”

— Robert W. Morgan, M.D., Senior Physician Epidemiologist, Environmental Health Associates, in his review of epidemiologic studies of artificial sweeteners published in Food and Chemical Toxicology, April/May 1985

“The use of artificial sweeteners [saccharin and/or cyclamate] either in beverages or as tabletop sweeteners was not associated with an increased risk of bladder cancer.”

— J. M. Piper, of FDA’s Center for Drugs and Biologics, and associates G. M. Matanoski and J. Tonascia, who investigated risk factors for bladder cancer in 173 matched pairs of women, aged 20 to 49, American Journal of Epidemiology, 1986

“But to be harmed by saccharine, one would have to take enough to turn yourself into a giant saccharine crystal.”

— Dr. Vincent DeVita, Jr., then director of the National Cancer Institute, from his presentation to an American Cancer Society science writers’ forum, March 1988

Multiple Ingredient Approach

Posted by & filed under Multiple Ingredient Approach.

Low-calorie food ingredients make thousands of the low-calorie and low-fat foods and beverages possible today. Approximately 194 million Americans consume these products. There are numerous petitions pending today for government approval of low-calorie sweeteners, fat replacers and other low-calorie ingredients. And that means even more products will be available soon to help consumers reduce calories, fat and cholesterol.

Health-conscious consumers have indicated they want additional good-tasting, low-calorie and reduced-fat (“light”) foods and beverages. Having a variety of low-calorie ingredients available allows food manufacturers to choose the most appropriate ingredient, or combination of ingredients, for a given product — the “multiple ingredient approach.”

The Rise of Low-Calorie Product Popularity

Prior to the 1960s, “dietetic” products were marketed primarily to people (such as diabetic individuals) who for medical reasons had to follow dietary restrictions as part of a dietetic diet. Since that time, there has been a steady and significant change in consumers’ perceptions of reduced-calorie products — they are no longer for the few, but for the majority.

Increased health consciousness across the U.S., spawned during the 1960s, has blossomed into a national phenomenon. With the fitness craze has come an increasing number of converts to the “light” market. Today there is a strong demand for a wide variety of good-tasting, light foods and beverages, whether the foods are based on carbohydrate, fat or other caloric replacements.

Strength in Numbers

For nearly a century, low-calorie products were almost entirely dependent upon saccharin, the oldest of available low-calorie sweeteners. Now with the addition of aspartame, acesulfame potassium, neotame and sucralose, as well as the possible approval of other low-calorie sweeteners such as cyclamate, a “multiple sweetener approach” is being utilized, providing consumers with new product and taste choices.

A variety of sweeteners is important because neither saccharin, aspartame, acesulfame potassium, neotame, sucralose nor any of the new sweeteners is perfect for all uses. However, with several low-calorie sweeteners available, each can be used in the applications for which it is best suited. Also, when necessary, manufacturers can overcome limitations of individual sweeteners by blending sweeteners together.

Saccharin and Cyclamate — Synergistic Team

Since its discovery in 1879 and during its extensive use in foods throughout the twentieth century, saccharin provided the foundation for low-calorie foods and beverages. Although it was used commercially as early as 1910, the real impetus for widespread use was provided by both World Wars, when sugar supplies were rationed and/or cut off entirely.

During the 1960s, cyclamate joined saccharin as a viable commercial sweetener, and the two ingredients in tandem were popular in diet soft drinks, tabletop sweeteners and other products. This was really the first practical application of the multiple sweetener approach. The primary advantage of this sweetener blend was that saccharin boosted the sweetening power of the less potent cyclamate (the two sweeteners have a synergistic effect — that is, the sweetness of the combination is greater than the sum of the individual parts).

In 1970, cyclamate was taken off the U.S. market, and once again saccharin became the only low-calorie alternative to sugar.

Aspartame Joins the Roster

Aspartame made its debut in the U.S. food supply in 1981 when it was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use as a tabletop sweetener and in various foods and dry beverage mixes. Approval of the sweetener was expanded in 1983 to include carbonated beverages. Since then, aspartame has been approved for additional foods and beverages and is now approved for use in any food or beverage. It currently is used in more than 6,000 products worldwide.

With these approvals and its clean, sweet taste, aspartame provided much of the impetus for the tremendous growth in light foods and beverages during the 1980s. Aspartame’s assets include a sugar-like taste and properties which make it suitable for a variety of products. It has the ability to intensify and extend certain flavors, especially fruit flavors, which, for example, makes chewing gum taste sweet up to four times longer than with sugar-sweetened gum.

Acesulfame Potassium Brings More Low-Calorie Choices

In 1988, FDA approved another low-calorie sweetener, acesulfame potassium, for use as a tabletop sweetener, in dry beverage mixes and in other foods. Since then, FDA approved acesulfame potassium for additional uses, including carbonated beverages. Acesulfame potassium’s stability in heat and in liquids makes it a versatile sweetener with potential use in a wide range of foods and beverages.

Acesulfame potassium may be combined with other low-calorie sweeteners resulting in synergistic blends that provide improved taste profiles and overcome the slight aftertaste which may be noted in some products when acesulfame potassium is used at high concentrations. Acesulfame potassium also can provide economic and stability advantages when blended with other sweeteners.

Sucralose Expands Choices

Sucralose was granted approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on April 1, 1998 and approved for use in 15 food and beverage categories. This is the broadest initial approval ever granted by FDA for a food ingredient. The FDA expanded the uses for sucralose in 1999, approving it as a “general purpose” sweetener. Sucralose is a derivative of sugar but is 600 times sweeter, so very small amounts are needed to obtain equivalent sweetness. It tastes like sugar and has excellent stability in liquids and when heated. Sucralose is approved in more than 30 countries.

Neotame Becomes the Newest Sweetener

In July 2002, the FDA approved the use of neotame as a sweetening ingredient in any food or beverage product sold in the U.S. Neotame tastes very similar to sugar, is sweeter than other no-calorie sweeteners and is approximately 30 times sweeter than aspartame, and 7,000-13,000 times sweeter than sugar.

Other Sweeteners Being Reviewed

Additional low-calorie sweeteners, including cyclamate, could be available in the U.S. in the near future. A petition for the return of cyclamate to the U.S. market has been pending before FDA since 1982. If cyclamate is reapproved, it will be used in combination with other sweeteners for most uses, primarily because of its relatively low sweetness intensity — 30 times sweeter than sucrose.

Polyols Also Offer Low-Calorie Benefits

Recently, the reduced caloric value of a group of sweeteners known generally as polyols has become more widely recognized. Included in this group are: erythritol, isomalt, lactitol, maltitol, mannitol, sorbitol, xylitol and hydrogenated starch hydrolysates. Polyols can be used in a wide range of low-calorie, low-fat and sugar-free foods — from baked goods to frozen dairy desserts and confections — since they provide bulk without all the calories of sugar. Polyols do not promote tooth decay. Also, they are acceptable for people with diabetes following a diabetic diet.

New Fat Replacers on the Horizon

Many consumers are striving to meet dietary recommendations to reduce fat and cholesterol intake. With more than twice the calories/gram of sugar, fats are the greatest hidden source of calories in food. (Fat is 9 calories/gram; sugar is 4.) New fat replacers are providing consumers with an expanding number of products that have excellent taste and texture with less fat, cholesterol and calories.

The fat replacers developed to date generally fall into one of three categories: carbohydrate based; protein based; or fat based. Most of the low-fat products introduced in recent years contain carbohydrate-based fat replacers (e.g., cellulose, maltodextrins, gums, modified starches, polydextrose). Carbohydrates have been used safely for many years as thickeners and stabilizers. These ingredients are also effective fat replacers in many formulated foods. They are not suitable for frying foods.

Protein-based fat replacers have received considerable public attention due to FDA’s Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) approval of microparticulated protein, or whey protein concentrate. Protein-based ingredients have tremendous potential for use in a variety of products, especially frozen and refrigerated products. Although protein-based fat replacers are not suitable for frying foods, they can be used in many heat applications (e.g., cream soups, pasteurized products, baked goods).

Scientists have been able to chemically alter fatty acids to provide fewer or no calories, making fat-based fat replacers possible. Some fat-based fat replacers actually pass through the body virtually unabsorbed. These ingredients have the advantage of heat stability and offer excellent versatility, including use in frying. Currently, the availability of fat-based ingredients used in reduced-fat products is limited.

Pursuing the Mystery of Taste and Texture

While a food ingredient’s functionality for a given product application may be one of many questions of interest to food technologists, its acceptability to consumers is based primarily on a single question: How does it taste?

The development of low-calorie and low-fat ingredients has been complicated by the fact that scientists really do not know much about the mechanism of taste. Thus it is difficult, if not impossible, to predict how a given ingredient will taste to all individuals.

A significant advantage of a multiple ingredient approach to calorie control is that manufacturers can look for and utilize the best “recipe,” i.e., the low-calorie ingredient (or combination of ingredients) that is most pleasing for a given product. The result is a greater variety of low-calorie/low-fat foods and beverages that have the taste, texture and appeal of their traditional counterparts.

More Healthy Choices

Reduced-calorie and reduced-fat foods and beverages will not replace a person’s need for moderation and overall good nutrition. However, they do provide palatable alternatives which can make the difficult task of reducing fat and calories in the diet easier. Thus, when incorporated into a nutritionally balanced diet, these products can contribute positively to a healthy lifestyle.

With increased knowledge about taste and technology, the food and beverage industry is on the verge of developing a wider variety of good-tasting, low-calorie and low-fat products to meet the growing needs and demands of American consumers. A limited choice of low-calorie ingredients results in limited options for consumers. On the other hand, a wide variety of low-calorie ingredients provides products with improved taste and texture, increased stability, lower manufacturing costs, and ultimately, more choices for the consumer. And that’s good news for the growing number of calorie- and fat-conscious consumers.

Ask an Expert

faq2Do you have questions about low-calorie sweeteners? Want to learn more about maintaining a healthy lifestyle? You asked and we listened. Our resident Registered Dietitians answered the most popular questions about low-calorie sweeteners.

Media Contacts

For media inquiries please reach out to any of the below contacts: