I checked out the site.
It could be the same stuff, but certain things on the site differ from what I recall. For example, Naturlose is called “sugar free.” While that could just be “ad-speak,” I doubt that that would pass muster with the gov. After all, left-handed sugar is still, chemically, sugar. It is just arranged in a mirror image structure.
Reading through the G.V. Levin abstract about the stuff located at http://www.tagatose.com/naturlose-obesity.htm, you find some other things. For example, wheras what I discussed was discovered 15+ years ago, the substance they describe was discovered only 5 years ago.
This is not dispositive, of course, I could be off on my timeline. However, evidence to support both your find AND my assertion about metabolization exists within the same Levin abstract. Under a line about metabolization, it claims “25% absorbtion…75% unabsorbed unless and until adapted…”
Thus, this could be the same stuff, or it could be something else closely related, discovered after continuing research.
Tagatose has been around for much more than 5 years and Levin of all people should know that.
This article is from the Aug. 19, 1991 issue of The Scientist and it talks to Gilbert Levin (the same Levin you cite) about tagatose as a left-handed sugar useful as a non-caloric sweetener. His company had been working to find a method of mass production of the rare sugar and had filed a patent on that earlier in that year. (You may need registration to read the article.)
it also says that:
And the G. V. Levin article you cite says that:
This would have to follow given that no calories are gained by the body in its digestion.
I’m not absolutely sure what the “adapted” means in your quote, but it probably refers to the fermenting by the bacteria, which produce short-chain fatty acids that are absorbed into the body. And as I said before there is no mention of any enzyme activity produced or triggered by the tagalose anywhere in that article.
Obviously, the last thing anyone marketing tagatose would want is adaptation by the body to digesting the sugar as a sugar.
BTW, “sugar” in food labeling is always a synonym for sucrose. A food with tagatose would indeed be sugar-free.
Given the particular phrasing, “25% absorbtion…75% unabsorbed unless and until adapted…” under the section regarding metabolization, that indicates to me that the body only absorbs 25% of the substance and passes 75% of it unless and until the body adapts to it. And the only way THAT could happen is if the body starts to produce the proper enzyme to do so. The fact that it isn’t spelled out could just mean that Levin expects the potential reader to understand that implicitly.
That said-I’m not a biochemist, and I could be misunderstanding the particular lingo, misunderstanding the form of the statement, etc. And, of course, the lack of reference to data doesn’t mean the data isn’t out there. Still, I commend you on your search.
As for the sugar thing- I have to read labels a lot due to my food allergies and my high blood pressure, but sugar isn’t one of my major concerns. As far as sweetners go, I have to be more aware of whether I’m eating cane sugar or corn syrup. However, I just did a quick and unscientific poll and looked at some candy bar wrappers in the house to check. While most just listed sugar, one did list “Sugar:sucrose” and Sugar: dextrose" seperately. Perhaps “sugar” is used as a synonym for sucrose only when sucrose is the only sugar present. Its stuff like that that makes me vote in favor of clear food labels every time I get the chance.
I’m no biochemist either, but I have spent many, many, many hours in my local Med school library reading journal articles on digestion. And what I have concluded is that doctors cannot write their way out of paper bags.
I’ve been doing label reading out of necessity since 1978, long before the last set of labeling laws were passed. Labels today are tremendously better than they were in those dark ages.
While I am an advocate for better labeling myself, I understand that there are a huge number of groups wanting their own little pieces of info added to labels. Having watched closely the previous morass as the FDA tried to maneuver between all the demands and still create something readable by consumers and doable by all manufacturers I have little hope that they will want to dive back in very soon. The sheer expense of label changing will deter any Republican administration from requiring it in any case.
Ah, one can always hope. There is yet another labeling law on the table at this time. Whether its any good or whether it stands the proverbial snowball’s chance…