Not much more to add. Most people, I’d wager, don’t really like the taste of aspartame. As well, the taste of other sweeteners (such as Sweet 'n Low) was downright pleasant. I’m assuming it’s simply the cost of the ingrediants – Nutrasweet must be cheaper enough to justify its use.
Is this all there is, or is there more to it? And if its just cost, how much does aspartame cost in comparison to other non-sugar-based sweeteners?
Aspartame is made by combining two amino acids, and, therefore, was considered safe. Other sugar substitutes, such as saccharin, was shown to be carcinogenic. There are other sugar substitutes available now. Some cannot be used in drinks; some cannot be heated; etc. Aspartame is still considered GRAS, but reports of headaches, diarrhea, etc. abound. If you have a genetic disorder in which you cannot metabolize phenyolalanine you cannot ingest it.
I never thought the taste of saccharine was pleasant in any way, but the flavor of aspartame is inoffensive to me (not as nice as sugar, but you can’t have everything). As I recall, that was precisely the main selling point for Nutrasweet when it came out -it didn’t have the nasty aftertaste of saccharine.
What are the other major sweeteners besides sugar, aspartame, and saccharine? Those are the only ones I ever hear about.
I would take that bet if I thought there would be an objective way to resolve it. I like the taste of aspartame better than saccharin, myself, but I recognize that’s just one data point. While I know plenty of people who don’t like any artificial sweeteners whatsoever, I know only one person who dislikes the flavor of aspartame but likes saccharin. (I do know a few who are afraid that aspartame is bad for them, but that is an unrelated issue.)
Anyway, that’s still just anecdotal evidence. Does anyone know of a survey somewhere where they measured what artificial sweeteners people like?
Personally, the only time I choose to use a saccharin sweetener (like Sweet’n’Lo) is in my coffee (or, theoretically, other hot drinks).
Oh, almost forgot - I’ve also seen something called “sucralose” on some drinks. Is that a separate form of artificial sweetener, a natural sweetener, or just a different name for one of the others?
Stevia is a relatively new sugar substitute that can also be used in cooking. I believe sucralose is in Stevia, IIRC…
Correction: Splenda is the brand name for sucralose. Apparently Stevia does not contain Sucralose, but both Stevia and Splenda may be used in cooking without losing sweetness.
sucralose is tradenamed Splenda. It is formed from sucrose molecules by replacing three O-H groups with chlorine atoms.
I can’t stand other artificial sweeteners but I use Splenda reguarly in my coffee. IMO, it tastes much, much more like sugar than any other substitute.
“If you have a genetic disorder in which you cannot metabolize phenyolalanine you cannot ingest it [aspartame].”
Phenylketonurics can ingest aspartame just fine. However, ingesting anything containing phenylalanine (e.g., most proteins) poisons them.
Another vote for Splenda here. It’s a magnificient sweetner and it’s heat stable so you can use it in baking.
Then why does it say on aspartame-flavored soda:
PHENYLKETONURICS: CONTAINS PHENYLALANINE
I can’t find anything else in the ingredient list that would probably contain phenylalanine…
Yeah meant anyone can ingest it, including phenylketonurics (but it’ll poison them if they do).
Oh. :rolleyes:
Stevia is an herb that has long been popular in parts of Paraguay and Bolivia. There is not much scientific research on its safety.
Sucralose (Splenda) is basically a chemically altered sucrose–some oxygen atoms are replaced by chlorine.
Acesulfame potassium (Sunnet) is another sweetener used in some products–because of its aftertaste, it is sometimes combined with other sweeteners. Like saccharin, Sunnet molecules contain sulfur.
One of the main concerns about Aspartame is that it can degrade into methanol, which can further degrade into formaldehyde.
Saccharin can be derived from coal tar.
Stevia is a South American shrub whose leaves have been used for centuries by native peoples in Paraguay and Brazil to sweeten their yerba mate and other stimulant beverages. Although the FDA has not approved its use in foods, you can buy it in health food stores as a dietary supplement. The European Union concluded in 1999 that it is “not acceptable” as a sweetener because of concerns about its toxicity. Infertility has been shown in rats fed megadoses and mutagenicity has been demonstrated in the lab. Very large amounts can interfere with the absorption of carboydrates and disrupt the conversion of food intoenergy. (Nutrition Action Health Letter, April 2000)
Stevia is the best tasting sweetener, IMO, but it’s too much of a hassle mail ordering it.
From what I’ve read from seemingly reliable sources, saccharin’s popularity was tainted by various unpleasant things done by the makers of aspartame.
They funded a test with the goal of proving that saccharine was cancerous, and to that effect, they injected rats with more and more saccharin, until they were subjected to the equivelant of 300 cans of pop per day in human terms. And not only that, but rats lack a certain digestive enzyme to properly digest saccharine.
So they set out to ‘prove’ saccharine was cancerous, and pumped rats full of it until pretty much ANY substance would cause cancer. The FDA required cancer warnings on saccharine, and all the newspapers reported “saccharine gives you cancer!” and such. In comes nutrasweet/aspartame, replacing saccharine’s large market of diet pop, etc. A few years ago the FDA recanted and found that saccharine wasn’t cancerous after all, but no one seemed to report that. Didn’t matter, really - aspartame had it’s market set up by that time.
I’ve also read from less reliable sources (but this should be fairly easy to independently verify) that an FDA scientific panel unanimously agreed on the delaying of approval for aspartame because it’s possibly harmful and the need for later tests. But whoever was in charge (the name escapes me) overruled them and forced it’s approval anyway, and then retired as a ‘consultant’ to nutrasweet making several million a year.
I have some concentrated Grean Tea that contains a sweetener made from “Magic Fruit” (memordica fruit) and the stuff if pretty good. This thread made me look into this some more, and here’s the best(although it may be a biased) page of info I found on it:
http://www.supriyabiotech.com/calonil.html
Apparently, it’s also known as calonil, and one brand-name is HerbaSweet. If it’s all it’s cracked up to be, it’s the best all around sweetener with all the positives and no negatives or drawbacks.
Anybody ever heard of or know anything more about this sweetener made from magical fruit?
If all that page says is true, I can only imagine that price and availability are the only thing keeping this from being a more widely used sweetener.
…for the people who don’t bother to go look at the link above, here’s a quick blurb from the FAQ.
Well, that does sound pretty bad, but wouldn’t that have been 20 years ago? It has been tested since then, right?