Sinlessly Sweet: The Science of Artificial Sweeteners
Summary
TLDRIn 1879, chemist Constantin Fahlberg accidentally discovered saccharin, the first artificial sweetener, from coal tar byproducts. Despite initial concerns and a temporary ban due to cancer fears in rats, saccharin was later deemed safe for humans. The script highlights the complex process of determining food additive safety and debunks myths about synthetic vs. natural substances. It also examines the benefits and risks of artificial sweeteners for diabetics and weight management, emphasizing that moderate consumption is generally safe and potentially beneficial.
Takeaways
- 🔬 Constantin Fahlberg accidentally discovered saccharin, the first artificial sweetener, in 1879 while working with coal tar byproducts.
- 🌳 Coal, from which saccharin is derived, is essentially 300 million-year-old plant material.
- ⚖️ The source of a substance (natural or synthetic) does not inherently determine its safety or toxicity.
- 🐀 High doses of saccharin were found to cause bladder cancer in rats in the 1960s, leading to its temporary ban.
- 📜 Subsequent research revealed that the cancer risk in rats was not applicable to humans, resulting in the ban being lifted in 1991 and warning labels being removed by 2001.
- 🔎 Determining the safety of food additives is a complex process involving extensive research and regulation.
- 🍬 There are three main categories of sugar substitutes: artificial sweeteners (e.g., saccharin, aspartame), sugar alcohols (e.g., xylitol, sorbitol), and natural sweeteners (e.g., stevia, monk fruit).
- 📉 Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) levels for sweeteners are set to be 100 to 1000 times lower than doses shown to cause harm in studies.
- ⚖️ Extensive studies show that artificial sweeteners do not negatively impact health at typical consumption levels.
- 🩺 For diabetics and those aiming to reduce sugar intake, artificial sweeteners offer a safer alternative to sugar without significant health risks.
Q & A
Who discovered saccharin and how was it discovered?
-Constantin Falberg, a young chemist, discovered saccharin accidentally in 1879 while working at Johns Hopkins University. He found it when he bit into a piece of bread after forgetting to wash his hands, which had been contaminated with a chemical byproduct from coal tar.
What is the origin of coal and how is it related to saccharin?
-Coal is formed from the remains of ancient forests that died around 300 million years ago. These trees were compressed over millions of years into peat, lignite, bituminous, and finally anthracite coal. Saccharin was initially derived from coal, which is essentially plant material.
Why did the perception of artificial sweeteners change in the 1960s?
-In the 1960s, researchers found that very high doses of saccharin caused bladder cancer in rats. This led to a regulatory response to ban substances shown to cause cancer in animals, regardless of dosage, which included saccharin.
What was the outcome of the saccharin ban in the 1970s?
-The ban on saccharin caused a significant outcry, especially among diabetics who relied on it to manage their sugar intake. Eventually, the government allowed its use with a warning label, acknowledging that the dosage causing problems in rats was not relevant to human consumption.
Why was saccharin eventually deemed safe for consumption again?
-Further scientific research showed that the reason rats developed bladder cancer from saccharin did not apply to humans, as humans lack the specific proteins that led to tumor formation in rats. This led to the FDA lifting the ban on saccharin in 1991, and it was removed from the list of carcinogens in 2000.
What is the significance of the phrase 'the dose makes the poison' in the context of artificial sweeteners?
-The phrase 'the dose makes the poison' emphasizes that toxicity is largely dependent on the amount of a substance consumed. Even natural substances can be toxic in high doses, whereas artificial sweeteners, consumed in typical amounts, are safe.
How do artificial sweeteners work in terms of taste?
-Artificial sweeteners mimic the taste of sugar by fitting into the same taste bud receptors on the tongue that detect simple sugars like glucose, fructose, and sucrose. However, they are not broken down in the small intestine, making them non-caloric or low-caloric.
What are the three categories of sugar substitutes mentioned in the script?
-The three categories of sugar substitutes are artificial sweeteners (e.g., aspartame, saccharin, sucralose), sugar alcohols (e.g., xylitol, erythritol, sorbitol), and natural sweetness (e.g., monk fruit, stevia).
What is allulose and how does it differ from other sugar substitutes?
-Allulose is a rare sugar found in figs and raisins that is hard to digest and about 70% as sweet as table sugar. It is promising because it functions similarly to resistant starch, which is familiar to our bodies, and is considered a natural sugar substitute.
Do artificial sweeteners have any health benefits or risks according to the script?
-According to the script, there is no evidence that any sweetener is harmful at the dose typically consumed. They do not cause cancer, damage the gut, or affect glucose tolerance. However, they may help in managing diabetes or weight loss when used in moderation.
What is the role of artificial sweeteners in weight management and diabetes?
-For diabetics or pre-diabetics who enjoy sweet foods, switching to sugar substitutes can be beneficial. For those looking to reduce weight, sweeteners can help, but only as part of a broader strategy that includes calorie reduction and exercise.
Outlines
🔬 The Accidental Discovery of Saccharin
In 1879, chemist Constantin Fahlberg accidentally discovered the artificial sweetener saccharin while working at Johns Hopkins University. After a long day, he noticed an unusually sweet taste on his bread, which led him to realize he had forgotten to wash his hands after working with coal tar byproducts in his lab. This discovery sparked curiosity about the origins and safety of artificial sweeteners, challenging the notion that synthetic substances from fossil fuels are inherently harmful.
⚖️ Reevaluating Saccharin's Safety
Despite initial fears that saccharin caused bladder cancer in rats during the 1960s, further research showed that these findings did not apply to humans due to different biological mechanisms. Regulatory bodies like the FDA re-evaluated saccharin's safety over the decades, ultimately lifting the ban and removing warning labels as more evidence emerged. This process highlights the complexity and evolving nature of scientific research in food safety.
🔍 Understanding Sugar Substitutes
Sugar substitutes, including artificial sweeteners, sugar alcohols, and natural sweeteners, offer a variety of options for reducing calorie intake. These substitutes mimic the sweetness of sugar without the same caloric content. Artificial sweeteners like aspartame and saccharin, sugar alcohols like xylitol, and natural options like Stevia each have unique properties and uses. The safety and effectiveness of these substitutes are supported by extensive research, although personal preferences and specific needs vary.
🧪 The Safety and Benefits of Artificial Sweeteners
Extensive studies show that artificial sweeteners, when consumed within acceptable daily intake levels, do not pose significant health risks. Despite some studies on rats indicating potential cancer risks at extremely high doses, human consumption typically falls far below these levels. For diabetics and those looking to reduce sugar intake, artificial sweeteners can be beneficial. However, they are not a magic solution for weight loss and should be part of a balanced approach to diet and health.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Saccharin
💡Artificial Sweeteners
💡Coal Tar
💡Carcinogens
💡Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI)
💡Sweetness Perception
💡Health Influencers
💡Diabetes
💡Bladder Cancer
💡Natural vs. Synthetic
Highlights
Constantin Fahlberg discovers saccharin, the world's first artificial sweetener, by accident in 1879 while working with coal tar derivatives.
Saccharin is isolated from coal tar, highlighting the unexpected sources of artificial sweeteners.
Coal is essentially 300 million-year-old compressed plant material, challenging the notion that fossil fuel-derived products are inherently unnatural.
The 1960s research found that high doses of saccharin caused bladder cancer in rats, leading to its ban under the prevailing regulatory philosophy.
Saccharin was reinstated for use in 1977 with a warning label due to public outcry and its importance for diabetics.
Further studies revealed that the cancer-causing mechanism in rats did not apply to humans, leading to the FDA lifting the ban in 1991.
In 2000, saccharin was removed from the national toxicology program's list of carcinogens, and in 2001, the warning label requirement was dropped.
Natural does not automatically mean safe, and synthetic does not automatically mean toxic.
The process of determining health effects of additives involves extensive research, multiple experts, and decades of studies.
Artificial sweeteners are among the most widely studied molecules, contrary to claims made by health influencers.
Even substances like turmeric or amino acids can be toxic at high doses – the dose makes the poison.
Sweetness perception in humans evolved to detect high-calorie foods, but modern sugar substitutes provide sweetness without calories.
There are three categories of sugar substitutes: artificial sweeteners, sugar alcohols, and natural sweeteners.
Studies show that artificial sweeteners do not negatively impact glycemic control, insulin resistance, or gut health at typical consumption levels.
Artificial sweeteners can be beneficial for diabetics and those looking to reduce weight, but are not a substitute for overall healthy eating habits.
Transcripts
the year is 1879 a young chemist named
Constantin falberg is at work at Johns
Hopkins University tinkering around with
chemical byproducts of coold tar he's
exhausted goes back home for dinner and
he picks up a piece of bread and bites
it to find that it is unbelievably sweet
he asks his wife if she accidentally
added tons of sugar to the bread D and
she says no and he realizes he had
forgotten to wash his hands at his
laboratory so that is how he
accidentally discovers the world's first
artificial sweeten now saccharin benzoic
sulfimide isolated from colar now
there's a good chance many of you are
thinking wait we make artificial
sweeteners from coal of fossil fuel oh
my God so unnatural so let me take you
back 300 million years ago to put things
in perspective mammals did not exist
back then we had the giant forests of
trees that were more than 30 to 40 m
tall and when they died the swampy
environment meant that there is not
enough oxygen under the ground and that
slows down decomposition so over
millions of years huge amounts of tree
matter piled up and got compressed to
first become Pete then lignite then
bituminous and finally anthracite coal
so coal is just 300 mil ion year old
dead trees the reason I say this is that
on social media it's very common to
demonize some things because they are
synthetic and come from fossil fuels
whereas some things are considered good
purely because they come from natural
sources so if I say no sacarin comes
from colar and colar is just plant
material it sounds just as silly as
claiming that something is good purely
because it comes from a natural source
that you happen to prefer always judge
Foods on their merits on what they
actually contain and what they do to
your body rather than where they come
from so ignore and unfollow any
influencer who argues that something is
bad just because it came from a fossil
fuel which brings us back to sakur if
you're thinking of course asoke did this
elaborate setup and made the coal is
also from plant's argument just to
defend sakarin there is a Twist in the
tail in the 1960s researchers began
looking at the effect of artificial
sweeteners on Animal Health and found
that very high doses of sacarin caused
bladder cancer in rats and the
prevailing regulatory philosophy of the
time was to ban anything that was shown
to cause cancer in humans or animals
regardless of the dosage so sacarin was
banned surprised at the time it caused a
huge outcry because it had become a
lifesaver for diabetics in the western
World given the per capita consumption
of sugary carbonated drinks sacarin
played a huge role in preventing some of
the worst side effects of diabetes so
much so that the government actually
said okay okay we know the dosage that
caused problems in rats is really large
and humans are not rats so we will allow
it to be used but with a big warning
label this was 1977 at this point you
might be thinking oh my God why would we
take a risk like that but actually the
risk was never significant in the first
place at all and this is a good
opportunity to understand how the
process of science works in the context
of food and nutrition and there is yet
another twist in the tale of sacarin
what happens over the next few decades
since 1977 is that scientists now find
out that the reason those rats got
bladder cancer did not apply to human
beings because we do not have the
specific proteins that led to tumor
formation in rats so 1991 the FDA in the
US withdrew its ban on sacarin in 2000
the national toxicology program removed
sacarin from its list of carcinogens in
2001 the US government decided that the
warning label was not required and
funnily enough all through this time
sakarin was never banned in Europe a
place that is generally far more
conservative than the US so what do we
learn from this entire story one natural
does not automatically mean safe and
synthetic does not automatically mean
toxic two determining the health effects
of additives is a long and complex
process involving multiple experts in
many countries Decades of experiments
and studies and a complex interplay of
government corporate and academic
interests sugar substitutes are some of
the most widely and well studied
molecules on the planet on the other
hand an influencer does like three
Google searches and two tweets to
declare that aspartame causes cancer
three despite all of that the single
biggest thing to keep in mind is that
even when something is shown to cause
cancer in rats in a lab setting that
dose is usually 100 to thousand times
more than what we tend to consume as
part of of food and that is how
acceptable daily intake ADI is
calculated for example the European ADI
for sacarin is 5 mg per kg of body
weight so if you're 60 kgs that's 300 mg
an average person will rarely exceed
more than 10 to 15% of this ADI and
remember ad is 100 to thousand times
smaller than the amount that would have
been used in Rat studies four even
natural substances like turmeric or even
individual amino acids that make a
protein will be toxic above a certain
dose the dose makes the poison which
then brings us to the next logical
question how do sugar substitutes work
humans have evolved taste receptors on
our tongue that can detect simple sugars
like glucose fructose and sucrose which
is a combination of glucose and fructose
and biologists believe that we evolve
this ability to detect foods that are
high in calories remember that before
agriculture high calorie foods were not
easily available so those that ate a lot
when it was available and stored it as
fat tended to survive periods when food
was not available and Agriculture and
modern civilization is less than 8,000
years old it's millions of years of
evolution before that that gives us our
sweet tooth sweetness perception works
by sugar molecules fitting into taste
bud receptors and turning it on and our
brain going sweet so if you can find
molecules that also fit into the same
sweet receptor and turn it on but when
they get to our small intestine it
should say I have no idea how to break
this molecule down you have a
non-caloric sugar substitute what you do
not want is stuff that breaks down into
other things that are not good for you
and manage to sneak into your
bloodstream that would be the textbook
definition of a poison so a sugar
substitute tastes sweet but provides
zero or very few calories there are
three categories one artificial
sweeteners these are synthetic compounds
like aspartame sacarin and Sucralose two
sugar alcohols these are carbohydrates
but are resistant to digestion so these
are not zero calorie but low calorie
like Xylitol ariol and sorbitol three
natur natural sweetness which are
molecules extracted from plants like
monk fruit or Stevia just so we are
clear sacarin comes from plants that
died 300 million years ago Mong fruit or
Stevia came from plants that died a few
months ago one interesting new
alternative is allulose which is just a
rare sugar found in figs and raisins
that is very hard to digest and is about
70% as sweet as stable sugar this is
promising because it works like the
resistant starch in rajar or CH which
our bodies are very familiar with as you
can see in this detailed table each
sweetener has different properties
they're usually sweeter than table sugar
which is why we only use a very small
amount in our foods and also have
different additional flavor notes that
sometimes people may not like for
example Stevia can have a lingering
bitter aftertaste while aspartame tastes
pretty close to regular sugar another
consideration is heat sensitivity you
can use Stevia while baking but not
aspartame which breaks down at high
temperatures which brings us to the
elephant in the room actually two
elephants the first elephant is do
artificial sweeteners cause harm and a
follow-up question is are some less
harmful than others the second elephant
are they beneficial for things like
weight loss let's address the first one
the simple answer no there is no
evidence that any sweetener is harmful
at the dose we tend to consume let's see
some studies this study shows that
sucralose even in high doses does not
negatively impact glycemic control
insulin resistance or gut health in
healthy adults this study shows that
sacarin does not negatively impact
glucose tolerance or gut health this
randomized control trial shows that
there is no difference between
artificial and natural sweeteners when
it comes to glucose response which
answers our second part of the question
are there good artificial sweeteners and
bad ones and by the way many more
studies are linked in the description
these are important because Health
influencers regularly make claims that
even if sweeteners do not cause sugar
spikes they cause other issues and there
is no evidence from Human studies that
that happens one thing to keep in mind
in India is that pan Masala tends to use
sacarin which is e 954 and those who are
addicted to p P Masala will likely
consume more than the acceptable daily
intake of sacarin but even at that
dosage the risk to your health is vastly
more from the carcinogenic ingredients
like ARA nut in the pan Masala not the
sacarin of course there are studies that
show that at extremely high doses in
rats some sweeteners like aspartame
increase the risk of some cancers but to
put things in perspective you'd first
have to consume more than 20 cans of
diet drink to even exceed the acceptable
daily intake which and I repeat this
again is 100 to thousand times less than
the amount that showed increased cancer
risk in rats which brings us to the
second question look given all this
confusing signs are they truly worth it
are there any benefits can we not just
consume sugar in moderation and Skip
these things I wish it was that simple
so the answer is complicated sure
sweeters do not cause cancer damage your
gut or glucose tolerance but do they
help in any way it depends if you are a
diabetic or pre-diabetic patient who
enjoys eating sweet things in life sugar
in your tea or coffee sugary carbonated
drinks sweets Etc switching to sugar
substitutes is undoubtedly better for
you honestly it does not matter which
one because the average daily use is
going to be too small to make any
meaningful difference so don't break
your head if you're someone looking to
reduce your weight
then sweeteners can help you with that
goal but only a bit the evidence is
mixed for sure just sweeteners alone
will not help you still need to reduce
overall calories do more exercise and so
on if you are a healthy person just
looking to pick up healthy eating habits
then eating less sugar is a better
long-term bet than switching to
sweetness but do what works for you we
are not all the same the behavior
rituals that work for each of us are
very different if sweeters help you meet
your caloric restriction goals while
allowing you to enjoy sweet things go
ahead but if you can achieve it without
using them that's good too there is no
single path to good health
[Music]
Weitere ähnliche Videos ansehen
10 REASONS TO USE VASELINE ON THE FACE | Dermatologist
ZAT ADITIF DAN ADIKTIF : IPA SMP KELAS 8
What is MSG, and is it actually bad for you? - Sarah E. Tracy
Dark Reality of Cold Drinks | Dhruv Rathee
Insulin Scientist Reveals the Best Sweetener for Reducing Belly Fat - Dr. Bikman
Are food preservatives bad for you? - Eleanor Nelsen
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)