Sinlessly Sweet: The Science of Artificial Sweeteners

Summary

In 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

00:00

🔬 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.

05:02

⚖️ 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.

10:02

🔍 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.

Keywords

💡Saccharin

Saccharin is the first artificial sweetener discovered by Constantin Fahlberg in 1879 while working with coal tar byproducts. It is a synthetic compound that mimics the sweetness of sugar without the calories. The video discusses its accidental discovery, initial health concerns, and eventual acceptance as a safe sugar substitute.

💡Artificial Sweeteners

Artificial sweeteners are synthetic compounds designed to mimic the taste of sugar while providing fewer or no calories. Examples mentioned in the video include saccharin, aspartame, and sucralose. The video explores their health effects, regulatory history, and role in managing conditions like diabetes.

💡Coal Tar

Coal tar is a byproduct of coal processing that played a key role in the discovery of saccharin. The video explains how saccharin, originally derived from coal tar, led to discussions about the natural versus synthetic origins of food additives.

💡Carcinogens

Carcinogens are substances capable of causing cancer in living tissue. The video highlights concerns from the 1960s about saccharin being a carcinogen based on rat studies, and how later research clarified that these findings did not apply to humans, leading to the reevaluation of saccharin's safety.

💡Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI)

Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) is the maximum amount of a substance that can be consumed daily over a lifetime without posing a significant risk to health. The video explains how ADI is calculated, particularly for saccharin, and emphasizes that typical consumption levels are far below these limits.

💡Sweetness Perception

Sweetness perception refers to how humans detect and recognize sweet flavors, primarily through taste receptors on the tongue. The video discusses the evolutionary background of this ability and how artificial sweeteners activate these receptors without adding calories.

💡Health Influencers

Health influencers are individuals who use social media and other platforms to share health and nutrition advice. The video criticizes some influencers for spreading misinformation about artificial sweeteners, emphasizing the importance of scientific evidence over anecdotal claims.

💡Diabetes

Diabetes is a chronic condition characterized by high blood sugar levels. The video explains how artificial sweeteners like saccharin can be beneficial for diabetic individuals by providing a sweet taste without affecting blood sugar levels, thus helping manage their condition.

💡Bladder Cancer

Bladder cancer is a disease where malignant cells form in the tissues of the bladder. The video discusses the historical concern that high doses of saccharin caused bladder cancer in rats, which led to regulatory scrutiny and eventual clarification that these findings did not apply to humans.

💡Natural vs. Synthetic

The natural vs. synthetic debate centers on the perception that natural substances are inherently safer or better than synthetic ones. The video challenges this notion by explaining that both natural and synthetic substances can be safe or harmful, depending on their properties and usage.

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]