Shining The Spotlight On Artificial Sweeteners

The past fifty years has seen a spike in the consumption of sugar, that number totaling a tripling increase. However, sugar is not the only risk factor here, alcohol and tobacco can also be attributed with the spike, albeit not as prevalent as sugar. The biggest question that Lustig et al. poses to its’ readers is this: “What aspects of the Western diet should be the focus of intervention”? (par. 3) The current USDA has been deemed “boogeymen” of diets, as well as the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Lustig et al. all believe that our attention should be turned towards “added sugar”, which is a sweetener that has fructose in it. Perhaps the biggest controversy from the past fifty years has been none other than a severe culprit that experts know as high fructose corn syrup or HFCS.

Recent evidence linking sugar to non-communicable disorders shows that we need to rethink and re-evaluate what we know about sugar and how we consume it. According to the World Health Organization, sugar should not be more than 10% of the calories you consume daily. This is about 30-50 grams or 6-10 teaspoons of added sugar, depending on the age. Are all types of sugar bed? What are the common sources of added sugar? Are you concerned about eating too much sugar? Should you? Consider the answers to 3 most common questions about sugar and their answers

After watching the video and reading the article provided, I found that the arguments the two used were very interesting because of how different they were. In the video, Robert Lustig’s argument, in which he claimed sugar was bad for us, was limited to added sugar. He mentioned that 80% of foods have added sugar, and used soda several times in his video to argue his point. For example, he shared a statistic about the relationship between soda and the risk of diabetes. He also mentioned that sugar causes fat accumulation in/around organs, specifically mentioning the liver. To anyone listening, these are great reasons to dub sugar ‘evil’. However, David Katz’ article was written to counter the claims made in the video. In it, sugar was not made out to be a ‘villanous nutrient’. In fact, Katz included the importance of sugar as an evolutionary mechanism. He explained that it was a method of natural selection, in which, for the most part, sweeter things were classified as good for us, while bitter things were classified as bad for us. In addition, I think it was a smart move on his part to take the argument out of the realm of added sugar. He argued that the types of food (and, therefore, the types of sugar) were important, as strawberries and soda do not have the same nutritional values.

Sugar is, and has always been, unavoidable; conversely, sugar has not always been toxic. Naturally abundant and technically enhanced, this substance has followed in the footsteps of tobacco and alcohol, becoming just as unhealthy and ultimately lethal. And, without the implementation of government

Sugar is a very common thing we can find in our modern world. It’s in the majority of what we eat, drink, and snack on. Convenience is its best friend, because it can be found anywhere we look. We can find it at our corner gas station, our local supermarket, favorite movie theater, and in our own homes. Sugar is so closely related to the obesity crisis, and is believed to be the number one reason obesity exists.

After reading the article "Sweeteners: Facts and Fallacies" the alternative sweetener I have chosen is stevia. Upon the completion of reading facts on stevia, I refute the toxicology safety of consumer use on this alternative sweetener. According to the article "The Sweet Facts on Stevia" it was only sold as a dietary supplement in the 1980's after being linked to cancer and reproductive problems in animals. In 2008, stevia manufacturers petitioned the FDA until Reb A, the plants sweetest sugar molecule, was deemed "generally recognized as safe" or GRAS. "According to CSPI, the FDA did not perform the amount of testing usually required for GRAS status, and further testing on Reb A is needed (Palmer, 2013). With the number of different

Aspartame, a chemical that produces a sweet taste without producing calories has been highly used since 1981 to replace natural sugar. People believe that aspartame could help them reach their diet goal, especially for those who are trying to lose weight. Is is widely used on food product like carbonated beverage and cereal, and people believe that by consuming aspartame sweetened products instead of naturally sweetened products, they would consume fewer calories and therefore reaching their diet goals. However, even though aspartame contains no calories, research had shown that people have a tendency to compensate that caloric intake through other sources. My goal is to persuade them that aspartame is an ideal replacement for

They are bad for you because they contain excessive amounts of sugar too. Some may contain artificial sweeteners. Such as a diet soda. Artificial sweeteners are sugar substitutes. These sugar substitutes are a source of many health problems as well.

In the argument, the author summarizes that people trying to lose weights which are better off consuming sugar than the artificial sweetener aspartame. The author thinks that artificial sweetener aspartame unlikely achieve the goal which is one the diet is not convincing. Here are some following reasons.

Is it smart to use artificial sweeteners as weight loss? People have been using artificial sweeteners as weight loss for diets because if they're addicted to sugar than can use it as a sugar substitute because there’s no calories inside(hsph.harvard.edu). People use it in their foods because it still has that sugary taste that makes them

Using artificial sweeteners may seem like a healthier choice due to their lack of calories, yet there are many reported health risk, including migraines, dietbetes, and even weight gain. In addition, artificial sweeteners are often marketed as ideal for dietbetics, but many studies contradict this claim. When artificial sweeteners are consumed, the taste buds send signals to the brain alerting it that sugar is being eaten. The brain then signals the pancrease to release insulin, whos job is to help cells take in glucose, which is simple sugar. Continued use of zero calorie sugar substitutes can cause the body to become desensitized, and therefore increasing the risk of resistance, rather than decreasing it.

There has been a 200% increase in children’s use of artificial sweeteners between 1999 and 2012(Consumer Health News 2017). This is not as sweet as some people think, due to the possibility of developing cancer, diabetes, or obesity from enough artificial sweeteners. The risk of artificial sweeteners affecting humans’ health can be reduced or eliminated if a proper alternative is chosen and put in place.

The consumption of foods and beverages containing artificial sweeteners has significantly expanded over the past few decades. The main reasons to use suger substitutes are: to help weight loss, to diminish the risk of dental disorders and to provide palatable food for some patients such as diabetics. Artificial sweeteners include acesulfame-potassium, aspartame, advantame, neotame, saccharin, alitame and cyclamates and sucralose. In addition to stevioside and rebausioside A . Sucralose is an intense artificial sweetener produced by chlorination of sucrose so it is a chlorinated disaccharide, 600 times sweeter than sucrose, and is very stable at high temperatures. It was approved by the FDA, in 1998, to be utilized in foods, beverages,

Increased incidence of obesity, diabetes, and metabolic syndrome, coupled with heightened consumer awareness, has led to unfaltering movement toward the utilization of low calorie artificial sweeteners which make artificial them progressively prevalent as an alternative to sugar. These artificial sweeteners, also called nonnutritive sweeteners (NNS)/low calorie sweeteners/intense sweeteners, provide more intense sweetness and no or a few calories per gram and are used in beverages, dietary products, drugs, and even mouthwashes. The United States Food and Drug Administration (US-FDA)authority has approved six NNS (saccharine, aspartame ,sucralose, neotame , acesulfame K, and stevia) for use in humans and has classified them under generally recognized as safe (GRAS) category.(Sharma et al. ,2016).

Sweetness is usually correlated with sugar. The problem with sugar, otherwise known as sucrose, is that it has a lot of calories. These calories lead to weight gain if not spent by exercise, but now that humans have the knowledge and technology to create various substances, there are artificial sweeteners that do not have calories at all and taste even sweeter than sucrose. Many Americans avoid sugar-sweetened drinks by drinking beverages filled with artificial sweeteners such as aspartame to avoid weight gain. However, studies have shown that the adverse neurological and visceral effects of aspartame demonstrate that artificial sweeteners are more harmful than helpful; therefore, artificial sweeteners, especially aspartame, should not be