An Introduction to Sweeteners

1
Arpita Das and Runu Chakraborty

Abstract
A preference for sweet taste is innate and sweeteners can increase the pleasure of
eating. Nutritive sweeteners contain carbohydrate and provide energy. They occur
naturally in food or may be added in food processing or by consumers before
consumption. Higher intake of added sugars is associated with higher energy
intake and lower diet quality, which can increase the risk for obesity, prediabetes,
type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. On average, adults in the United
States consume 14.6% of energy from added sugars. Polyols (also referred to as
sugar alcohols) add sweetness with less energy and may reduce risk for dental
caries. The body does not differentiate between naturally occurring sugars
and those added to food, but those that are added to food are most often associated
with low nutrient-dense food. Consumers should limit these empty sources of
energy to help achieve or maintain a healthy weight. Consumers who want a
sweet taste without added energy can choose from five FDA-approved
non-nutritive sweeteners based on their personal taste preference and the intended
use (e.g., for cooking or for tabletop use). Non-nutritive sweeteners, when
substituted for nutritive sweeteners, may help consumers limit carbohydrate and
energy intake as a strategy to manage blood glucose or weight.

Keywords
Nutritive sweetener • Non-nutritive sweetener • Obesity • Sucralose • Acceptable
daily intake

A. Das (*)
Department of Pharmaceutical Technology, Jadavpur University, Kolkata, India
e-mail: arpita_84das@yahoo.co.in
R. Chakraborty (*)
Department of Food Technology and Biochemical Engineering, Jadavpur University, Kolkata, India
e-mail: rchakraborty@ftbe.jdvu.ac.in; crunu@hotmail.com

# Springer International Publishing AG 2018 1

J.-M. Mérillon, K.G. Ramawat (eds.), Sweeteners, Reference Series in Phytochemistry,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27027-2_1
2 A. Das and R. Chakraborty

Contents
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2 Classification of Sweeteners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1 Low Potency Sweetener and High Potency Sweeteners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2 Natural and Artificial Sweetener . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3 Nutritive and Non-nutritive Sweeteners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3 Health Aspects of Sweeteners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1 During Pregnancy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2 During Childhood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3 Dental Caries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4 Obesity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.5 Diabetes and Glycemic Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

1 Introduction

Everyone is interested to crave a sweet treat. Maybe it is sometime a morning

macchiato, a mid afternoon cola, or to wind things down, a bowl of extreme
chocolate fudge brownie overload with caramel swirl ice cream. Regardless of
your favorite confectionary indulgences, we are actually born with a sweet tooth.
Sweet-tasting food is more calorically dense than less sweet food, making sweetness
a valid predictor of subsequent energy availability. The fondness of humans for
sweet food is inborn: studies have shown a preference for sweet-tasting nutrition in
newborns. Therefore, mankind has always added sweet substances to their food.
Recognizing our desire for sweet flavors, the food industry has developed and
supplied sugar free alternatives designed to satisfy our cravings, referred to as
sugar substitutes, artificial sweeteners, or non-nutritive sweeteners. Uses of sweet-
eners have largely increased in the past 20 years. Nowadays they occupy a large
portion of commercial space on supermarket shelves worldwide. These products are
available mainly for people who are diabetic or who are looking for low-calorie
materials. Alternative sweeteners are produced to be used in several products
ranging from cookies to soft drinks, in order to satisfy the consumers. Where
conventional sugars such as glucose, fructose, and sucrose are to be replaced by
highly sweet alternatives, the fact that such alternatives often do not have the bulk
that the conventional carbohydrates do, on account of their higher sweetening
intensity per unit weight, must be borne in mind.
Sweet substances are compounds with diverse chemical structures and sizes, for
example, sugars (sucrose), sugar alcohols (xylitol), sulfonyl amides (saccharin),
peptides (aspartame), D-amino acids (D-tryptophan), and proteins (thaumatin)
[1]. The worldwide demand for high-potency sweeteners is expected to increase,
especially with the new practice of combining different sweeteners. Amongst natu-
rally derived sweeteners, stevia and liquorice root are likely to become prevalent
sources of high-potency sweeteners for the growing natural food market in the
future. Rebaudioside A deriving from stevia is the least astringent, the least bitter,
1 An Introduction to Sweeteners 3

has the least persistent aftertaste, and was judged to have the most favorable sensory
attributes of the four major steviol glycosides [2]. Ideally, sweeteners should be of
low-caloric value, able to mask the test at lower concentration, and it should be free
from harmful side effects and suitable for long-term use. It should remain stable at
wide range of temperature and pH condition. It should have quick onset of action and
no lingering after taste. Sweetener should be water soluble with high dissolution rate.
In addition, it should be nonhygroscopic and should give synergistic effect with
other sweeteners. Therefore, in addition to other factors, commercialization of
sweetener needs to qualify most of these parameters [3].

2 Classification of Sweeteners

Sweeteners can be grouped in various ways. Sweetener potency is defined as the

number of times that a sweetener is sweeter than sucrose. The potency of a sweetener
is compared with sucrose mainly in the threshold levels of the sweetener and
sucrose.

2.1 Low Potency Sweetener and High Potency Sweeteners

Sugars and sugar alcohols, such as sucrose and xylitol, are low-potency sweeteners,
whose sweetener potencies are about 1 and under. On the other hand, sweeteners
which have a sweetener potency exceeding 10 are called high-potency sweeteners,
such as saccharin and aspartame. Interestingly, low-potency sweeteners, such as
sucrose, exhibit higher sweetness intensity than high-potency sweeteners at very
high concentrations. That is why low-potency sweeteners are also called high-
intensity sweeteners [4–6].

2.2 Natural and Artificial Sweetener

Sweeteners are functional food additives that impart sweetness in food [7]. Sweetener
can be broadly divided into two categories, natural and artificial or synthetic
sweetener. Natural sweetener can be further divided into saccharide and
nonsaccharide sweeteners [3]. Many other natural alternatives to sugar are available,
though not widely used, despite the fact that natural nonrefined sugar alternatives
potentially contain beneficial bioactive compounds, especially polyphenolic com-
pounds, known and appreciated for their antioxidant properties. Some of these
natural sugar alternatives include plant saps/syrups (e.g., maple syrup, agave nectar),
syrups made from raw sugar and grains (e.g., molasses, barley malt, and brown rice
syrup), honey, and fruit or vegetable sugars (e.g., date sugar, carrot). Among natural
alternatives to sucrose that can be used as sweeteners and are favored due to their low
glycemic index are also lucuma (Pouteria obovata) and yacon (Smallanthus
sonchifolius), which do not undergo any refining process and may therefore provide
4 A. Das and R. Chakraborty

a substantial content of other beneficial nutrients and bioactives. Likewise, the use
of Stevia and liquorice (Glycyrrhiza glabra) are also well known in confectionery
industry, but they still do not have a wider application due to the aftertaste that
often occurs in the products. Black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) is a tree native
and widely spread in the southeast European region, appreciated for its medicinal
properties (prepared and consumed as tea) and culinary uses (the flower nectar is
used for production of honey, flowers are fried, added to dishes, or used for
preparation of beverages), mostly due to its specific sweet taste and mild, flowery
aroma [8]. Artificial sweeteners are being used as sugar substitutes in considerable
and increasing amounts in food and beverages, especially for those who are
diabetic and/or obese. They have also been used in other personal care and
pharmaceutical products such as toothpastes [9]. Although, from the beginning
of their use, there has been a controversy over their risk as potential carcinogens
[10], these sweetener compounds are generally considered to be safe for use in
food stuffs [11–13]. Some of the low-calorie sweeteners at present approved by
different international authorities as direct food additives include acesulfame,
aspartame, cyclamate, saccharin, and sucralose [14, 15]. Other flavorings are
continually being developed and are gradually more commonly used in foodstuffs,
especially because they confer longer shelf life. Just as these compounds are
metabolically inert in the human body, so scientists are finding, they are also
inert in the environment. Concern is shifting from health concerns to ecosystem
concerns. In terms of environmental degradation, among the five most commonly
used artificial sweeteners named above, only aspartame decomposes under normal
usage conditions, and safety clearance was given to the intake of even its break-
down derivatives [16].

2.3 Nutritive and Non-nutritive Sweeteners

Artificial sweeteners have been classified as nutritive and non-nutritive depending

on whether they are a source of calories. The nutritive sweeteners include the
monosaccharide polyols (e.g., sorbitol, mannitol, and xylitol) and the disaccharide
polyols (e.g., maltitol and lactitol). They are approximately equivalent to sucrose
in sweetness [17]. The non-nutritive sweeteners, better known as artificial sweet-
eners, include substances from several different chemical classes that interact with
taste receptors and typically exceed the sweetness of sucrose by a factor of
30–13,000 times. Nutritive sweeteners (e.g., sucrose, fructose) are generally rec-
ognized as safe (GRAS) by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), yet concern
exist about increasing sweetener intakes relative to optimal nutrition and health. In
the United States, estimated intakes of nutritive sweeteners fall below this,
although one in four children (ages 9–18 years) can surpass this level. Polyols
(sugar alcohols), GRAS affirmed or petitions filed for GRAS, add sweetness with
reduced energy and functional properties to foods/beverages and promote dental
health. In addition to their sensory qualities, nutritive sweeteners add functional
properties to foods through their effects on physical (e.g., crystallization,
1 An Introduction to Sweeteners 5

viscosity), microbial (e.g., preservation, fermentation), and chemical (e.g.,

caramelization, antioxidation) characteristics [18]. Nutritive sweeteners are easily
digestible except in the cases of rare genetic abnormalities of carbohydrate metab-
olism (e.g., galactosemia, inherited fructose intolerance) [19]. Some unrefined
nutritive sweeteners provide minerals (e.g., molasses contains calcium, iron, mag-
nesium, and potassium), the amount per teaspoon of these minerals is practically
negligible compared with the dietary reference intakes [20]. Thus, consumers
should base their selection of nutritive sweeteners on sensory or functional prop-
erties, not on misconceptions of differences in nutrient value. The use of
non-nutritive sweeteners began with the need for cost reduction and continued
on with the need for calorie reduction. It is interesting that artificial sweeteners
were actually chemicals being developed for another purpose when the researcher
tasted it and found that it was sweet. Since the 1950s, non-nutritive sweeteners
have become a weight-loss wonder that allowed us to have our sweets without the
calories and cavities [21]. Since the discovery of saccharin in the late 1800s,
non-nutritive sweeteners have been used by consumers to achieve a sweet taste,
for reasons of economics, blood glucose control, or energy control. Non-nutritive
sweeteners approved for use in the United States have been tested and determined
to be safe at levels that are within the acceptable daily intake (level that a person
can safely consume everyday over a lifetime without risk, ADI) [22]. Non-nutritive
sweeteners have also seen increased use in European countries (due to the growing
interest in health and an aging population) as well as in developing countries (with
interest in making limited diets more palatable) [23]. One group of such sweeteners
consists of substances with a very intense sweet taste and is used in small amount
to replace the sweetness of a much higher amount of sugar. The sweeteners of this
type currently approved for use in the United States are- aspartame, acesulfane-K,
neotame, saccharin, sucralose, cyclamate, and alitame [24]. Five non-nutritive
sweeteners (Table 1) with intense sweetening power have FDA approval
(acesulfame-K, aspartame, neotame, saccharin, sucralose) and estimated intakes
below the ADI. By increasing palatability of nutrient-dense foods/beverages,
sweeteners can promote diet healthfulness.

2.3.1 Acesulfame-K
Acesulfame-K (potassium) was discovered in 1967 by chemist Karl Clauss. He
noticed a sweet taste when he licked his finger while working in the laboratory.
Acesulfame-K was approved in the United States in 1988 for specific uses, including
a tabletop sweetener. In 1998, the FDA-approved acesulfame-K for use in beverages.
In particular, it has been used to decrease the bitter aftertaste of aspartame and can be
found in NutraSweet-containing products. In 2003, it was approved for general use
in food, excluding meat or poultry [25]. Synthesis of acesulfame-K involves the
treatment of acetoacetamide with at least two equivalents of sulfur trioxide. This
results in formation of N-sulfoacetoacetamide, which is then dehydrated by sulfur
trioxide to form oxathiaazinone dioxide. Neutralization with potassium hydroxide
gives acesulfame-K [26]. Acesulfame-K is 200 times sweeter than sugar and has no
calories. Brand names include Sunett and Sweet One. It can be found in baked
6 A. Das and R. Chakraborty

Table 1 Characteristics of FDA-approved artificial sweeteners [25]

Number of
times
Sl. Common FDA sweeter than
no name Brand names approval sucrose kcal/g Commercial uses
1. Acesulfame-K Sunett, 1988 – 200 0 Baked goods,
Sweet One tabletop frozen desserts,
1993 – candies,
beverages beverages, cough
2003 – drops, breath
general mints
use, but
not in
meat or
poultry
2. Aspartame NutraSweet, 1981 – 200 4 General-purpose
Equal tabletop food
1996 –
general
purpose
3. Neotame 2002 7000–13000 0 Baked goods,
soft drinks,
chewing gum,
frosting, frozen
desserts, jams,
jellies, gelatins,
puddings,
processed fruit
and fruit juices,
toppings, syrups
4. Saccharin Sweet’N 1970 200–700 0 Tabletop
Low, Sweet sweetener, baked
Twin, Necta goods, soft
Sweet drinks, jams,
chewing gum
5. Sucralose Splenda 1998 – in ~600 0 Tabletop
15 food sweetener,
categories beverages,
1999 – chewing gum,
general- frozen desserts,
purpose fruit juices,
sweetener gelatins

goods, frozen desserts, candies, beverages, cough drops, and breath mints.
Acesulfame-k is heat stable, so can be used in cooking and baking [27]. It may
have a bitter after taste when used alone to sweeten food or beverage [28] Ace-k is
often blended with other sweetener (usually sucralose or aspartame) whereby each
sweetener masks the other’s after taste and exhibit a synergistic effects by which the
blend is sweeter than its components.
1 An Introduction to Sweeteners 7

2.3.2 Aspartame
Aspartame was discovered in 1965 by James Schlatter a chemist [29]. It is an
artificial, nonsaccharide sweetener, L-aspertyl-L phenylalanine methyl ester that is a
methyl ester of the dipeptide of the amino acids aspartic acid and phenylalanine.
Under strongly acidic or alkaline conditions, aspartame may generate methanol by
hydrolysis. Under more severe conditions, the peptide bonds are also hydrolyzed,
resulting in the free amino acids. It is slightly soluble in water. The solubility
increases with higher or lower pH as well as with increased temperature. In aqueous
solution the relationship between pH and stability of aspartame is a bell-shaped
curve with the maximum stability at pH 4.3 [30]. The two major processes are
known as the Z- and F-processes named after the protecting group used on the
aspartyl group. Both of these processes produce some β-coupled products together
with the desired α-aspartame. The Z-process mainly involves the dehydration of the
benzyloxycarbonyl-L-aspartic acid with acetic anhydride [31]. The F-process
involves the protection of the amino group of aspartic acid with a formyl group
and concomitant dehydration to form anhydride [32]. This sweetener is marketed
under a number of trademark names including Equal, Nutrasweet, and Candere and
has a good clean sweet taste but its time-intensity profile differs from sucrose.

2.3.3 Neotame
Neotame is the newest artificial sweetener, a derivative of aspartame. Another similar
compound, alitame, is pending approval before the FDA. Neotame is 7,000–13,000
times sweeter than sugar and has no calories. Synthesis method of neotame involves
the hydrogenation of L-α-aspartyl–L-phenylalanine I methyl ester and 3–3 dimethyl-
butyraldehyde produced in situ by the hydrolysis or cleavage of a 3-3-dimethylbutyr-
aldehyde precursor [33]. Neotame is an odorless white to gray-white powder with a
strong sweetness and is readily soluble in alcohols and slightly soluble in water. The
0.5% aqueous solution of neotame is weakly acidic (pH 5.8) [34]. The FDA approved
neotame in 2002 as a general-purpose sweetener, excluding in meat and poultry. It can
be found in baked goods, soft drinks, chewing gum, frosting, frozen desserts, jams,
jellies, gelatins, puddings, processed fruits, toppings, and syrups.

2.3.4 Saccharin
Saccharin, the first artificial sweetener, was discovered serendipitously, as were most
artificial sweeteners. In 1879, Constantine Fahlberg was researching the oxidation
mechanisms of toluenesulfonamide while working at Johns Hopkins University in
the laboratory of Ira Remsen. During his research, a substance accidentally splashed
on his finger; he later licked his finger and noticed the substance had a sweet taste,
which he traced back to saccharin [35]. Since that time, a number of compounds
have been discovered and used as food additives for their sweetener properties.
Saccharin has been in use since 1900 and obtained FDA approval in 1970. Saccharin
has no calories and is 300 times sweeter than sugar [25]. Synthesis involves
diazotization of methyl anthranilate and then treatment of the diazonium salt with
sulfur dioxide and chloride gas to give the sulfonyl chloride which is then treated
with ammonia to give saccharin [36]. It is marketed as Sweet’N Low and sweetens
8 A. Das and R. Chakraborty

various products, including soft drinks, baked goods, jams, chewing gum, canned
fruit, candy, dessert toppings, and salad dressings. Saccharin is also used in cosmetic
products (e.g., toothpaste, mouthwash, and lip gloss), vitamins, and medications.

2.3.5 Sucralose
Sucralose was accidentally discovered in 1976 when Tate & Lyle, a British sugar
company, was looking for ways to use sucrose as a chemical intermediate. This
non-nutritive sweetener is made from sucrose by a process that substitutes 3 chloride
atoms for 3 hydroxyl groups on the sucrose molecule [25]. Sucralose is 600 times
sweeter than sugar and contains no calories. Sucralose was approved by the FDA in
1998 for use in 15 food categories, including a tabletop sweetener under the brand
name Splenda. It is used in beverages, chewing gum, frozen desserts, fruit juices, and
gelatins. In 1999, the FDA expanded its use as a general-purpose sweetener in all
food. Sucralose is very much soluble in water and is stable over a wide range of pH
and temperature [37].

3 Health Aspects of Sweeteners

Both nutritive and non-nutritive sweeteners have generated health concerns among
health care providers and the public for many years [38, 39]. Concerns related to
safety of non-nutritive sweeteners are addressed primarily in animal studies. Artifi-
cial sweeteners are present in many food consumed by whole world. Their use is
beneficial in that they provide sweetness, increasing the palatability of food without
the added sugar and resulting calories, an important adjunct to weight loss and diet
regimens. Most artificial sweeteners are not metabolized by the body and are
therefore considered safe. However, scientists disagree about safety because the
metabolites of the “nonmetabolized” compounds have been shown to produce
deleterious effects in mice, rats, and dogs.

3.1 During Pregnancy

Pregnancy is a time of special concern because the focus is on maternal and fetal
health. All FDA-approved nutritive sweeteners and non-nutritive sweeteners are
approved for use by the general public, which includes pregnant and lactating
women. The position of the Academy is that use of nutritive sweeteners is acceptable
during pregnancy [40]. The safety of acesulfame-K, aspartame, sucralose, and
neotame in pregnancy has been determined with rat studies; the scientific community
accepts rats and some other animals as appropriate models for reproductive toxicology
testing that is applicable to human beings. At high doses, there was no change observed
in fertility, size of litter, body weight, growth, or mortality for acesulfame-K, sucralose,
or neotame [41–43]. Use of aspartame within the FDA guidelines appears safe for
pregnant women. Thus, consumption of these sweeteners within the acceptable daily
intakes appears safe during pregnancy.
1 An Introduction to Sweeteners 9

3.2 During Childhood

Because of their size and relatively high food and fluid intakes compared with
adults, children will have the highest intake of nutritive and non-nutritive sweet-
eners as calculated by milligram intake/kg bw/day. Children can safely consume
nutritive sweeteners. However, healthy young children (6–18 months) can exhibit
malabsorption because of incomplete digestion of fructose found naturally in fruit
juices or added to fruit drinks and carbonated sodas. Therefore, children exhibiting
nonspecific diarrhea may benefit from a reduction in fruit juice or drinks containing
fructose and polyols [19]. The estimated intakes of non-nutritive sweeteners in
children are below the established acceptable daily intakes for all approved
sweeteners. As a percentage of ADI, they are as low as 10.4% for aspartame to
as high as 60% for acesulfame-K. It has been suggested that caregivers may want to
limit intake of saccharin by young children because of the limited amount of data
available for its use in children [44]. The wide range of nutritive and non-nutritive
sweeteners available in the food supply, as well as blending these sweeteners in
food and beverage systems, should continue to keep estimated intakes of
non-nutritive sweeteners in children well below the acceptable daily intakes.

3.3 Dental Caries

Risk of dental caries increases with intake of nutritive sweeteners; this risk, however,
does not work independently of factors such as oral hygiene and fluoridation. Dental
caries are the localized destruction of dental hard tissue by acidic material from
bacterial fermentation of dietary carbohydrate [45]. Factors that influence the devel-
opment of dental caries include microbiological shifts in the biofilm, salivary flow,
buffering capacity of saliva, frequency and kind of dietary sugars consumed, length
of time oral bacteria have to ferment the fermentable carbohydrate and make organic
acids, tooth susceptibility, preventive behaviors such as cleaning of teeth [46], and
exposure to fluoride [47]. Use of polyol-based gum can reduce the risk of dental
caries in children, with the greatest benefit in xylitol-based gums [48]. The FDA
authorizes use of the health claim in food labeling that sugar alcohols and some
novel sugars (xylitol, sorbitol, erythritol, tagatose, mannitol, maltitol, isomalt,
lactitol, hydrogenated starch hydrolysates, hydrogenated glucose syrups, or a com-
bination of these) do not promote tooth decay. Non-nutritive sweeteners do not
promote dental caries.

3.4 Obesity

The causes of overweight and obesity are multifactorial, and the focus on any single
factor no doubt oversimplifies the issue. Nevertheless, with regard to recent and
rapid increases in the prevalence of obesity, scientific evidence has implicated a
number of dietary factors as likely contributors. Most recently, special attention has
10 A. Das and R. Chakraborty

been focused on the extremely high levels of consumption of sugars in general and
sugar-sweetened beverages in particular. For example, in the United States overall
consumption of sugar-sweetened soft drinks in 2001 was roughly 37 gallons per
capita [49]. In 2012 over 70% of adults reported that they consumed sugar-
sweetened beverages (SSB; soft drinks or fruit drinks with added sugar) [50], with
over 25% reporting daily intake. A recent meta-analysis also showed strong links
between SSB consumption and increased body weight [51]. The prevalence of
obesity has increased substantially at the same time as the consumption of
non-nutritive sweeteners has increased. The question is, do these sweeteners main-
tain a highly sweet food environment to increase risk of obesity through appetite,
intake, and energy regulation mechanisms? Some evidence primarily from studies
with animals suggests that high intakes of sweets (nutritive sweeteners alone or in
mixtures with fat) promotes weight gain through changes in neuropeptide control of
appetite, intake, and energy expenditure [52]. Thus, the rise in prevalence clearly
relates to all factors that cause an energy imbalance. Individuals who wish to lose
weight may choose to use non-nutritive sweeteners but should do so within the
context of a sensible weight management program including a balanced diet and
exercise.

3.5 Diabetes and Glycemic Response

It is well recognized that sweeteners do not cause diabetes. Increasing intakes of

sugars are not associated with increasing risk of diabetes [53, 54], with the latest
affirmation from a prospective study of over 39,000 women [55]. Intakes as high as
60 g fructose or sucrose per day may not adversely affect glycemic or lipid response
in persons with type 2 diabetes [56]. However, because there exists concern for
increased blood lipid levels with high intakes of fructose, addition of fructose as a
sweetening agent is not recommended for people with diabetes [57]. Polyols,
including trehalose, produce a lower glycemic response than fructose, glucose, or
sucrose, most likely because of their incomplete absorption [58]. Therefore, these
substances can be used safely in the diets of people with diabetes; however, because
of its laxative effect, the amount of polyols consumed may need to be limited
(especially in children). The non-nutritive sweeteners do not affect glycemic
response and can be safely used by those with diabetes.

4 Conclusions

Sweeteners elicit pleasurable sensations with (nutritive) or without (non-nutritive)

energy. Consumers can enjoy a wide range of sweeteners in a wide variety of food
and beverages. The range of nutritive and non-nutritive sweeteners allows choice in
the type and amount of sweeteners to include in the diet. Non-nutritive sweeteners
are safe for use within the approved regulations. Non-nutritive sweeteners are those
that sweeten with minimal or no carbohydrate or energy. They are regulated by the
1 An Introduction to Sweeteners 11

Food and Drug Administration as food additives or generally recognized as safe. The
Food and Drug Administration approval process includes determination of probable
intake, cumulative effect from all uses, and toxicology studies in animals. Five
non-nutritive sweeteners are approved by FDA; those are acesulfame-K, aspartame,
neotame, saccharin, and sucralose. They have different functional properties that
may affect perceived taste or use in different food applications. Consumers must be
aware of science-based information about sweeteners and supportive research on the
use of sweeteners to promote eating enjoyment, optimal nutrition, and health.

References
1. Shallenberger RS, Acree TE (1967) Molecular theory of sweet taste. Nature 216:480–482
2. Brandle JE, Starratt AN, Gijzen M (1998) Stevia rebaudiana: its agricultural, biological, and
chemical properties. Can J Plant Sci 78:527–536
3. Surana SJ, Gokhala SB, Rajmane RA, Jadhav RB (2006) Non- saccharide natural intense
sweeteners – an overview of current status. Nat Prod Radiance 5(4):270–278
4. Hayes JE (2008) Trans disciplinary perspectives on sweetness. Chemosens Percept 1:48–57
5. Cardello HMAB, Da Silva MAPA, Da Masio MH (1999) Measurement of the relative sweet-
ness of stevia extract, aspartame and cyclamate/saccharin blend as com-pared to sucrose at
different concentrations. Plant Foods Hum Nutr 54:119–130
6. Farkas A, Hid J (2011) The black agonist-receptor model of high potency sweeteners, and its
implication to sweetness taste and sweetener design. J Food Sci 76:S465–S468
7. DuBois GE, Prakash I (2012) Non-caloric sweeteners, sweetness modulators, and sweetener
enhancers. Annu Rev Food Sci Technol 3:353–380
8. Belšcak-Cvitanovic A, Komes D, Dujmović M, Karlović S, Biškic M et al (2015) Physical,
bioactive and sensory quality parameters of reduced sugar chocolates formulated with natural
sweeteners as sucrose alternatives. Food Chem 167:61–70
9. Zygler A, Wasik A, Namiesnik J (2009) Analytical methodologies for determination of artificial
sweeteners in food stuffs. TRAC Trends Anal Chem 28(9):1082–1102
10. Weihrauch MR, Diehl V (2004) Artificial sweeteners-do they bear a carcinogenic risk? Ann
Oncol 15(10):1460–1465
11. Kroger M, Meister K, Kava R (2006) Low calorie sweeteners and other sugar substitutes: a
review of the safety issues. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf 5(2):35–47
12. Ahmed FE, Thomas DB (1992) Assessment of the carcinogenicity of the non-nutritive sweet-
ener cyclamate. Crit Rev Toxicol 229(2):81–118
13. Cohen SM, Arnold LL, Emerson JL (2008) Safety of saccharin. Agro Food Ind Hi-tech
19(6):24
14. US FDA (2006) Artificial sweeteners: no calories. sweet! FDA Consum Mag 40(4):27–28
15. EU (2003) European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/115/EC of 22 December 2003
Amending Directive 94/35/EC on Sweeteners for Use in Food stuffs
16. US FDA (1983) Food additives permitted for direct addition to food for human consumption;
aspartame. Final rule. Fed Regist 48:31376–31382
17. Dills WL (1989) Sugar alcohols as bulk sweeteners. Annu Rev Nutr 9:161–186
18. Davis E (1995) Functionality of sugars: physicochemical interactions in foods. Am J Clin Nutr
62:170S–177S
19. Rumessen J (1992) Fructose and related food carbohydrates: sources, intake, absorption, and
colinical implications. Scand J Gastroenterol 27:819–828
20. National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine (1997) Dietary reference intake for
calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, vitamin D and fluoride. N.A. Press, Washington, DC
12 A. Das and R. Chakraborty

21. Kovacs Betty Artificial sweeteners (2011) http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?

articlekey=81475
22. Renwick AG (2006) The intake of intense sweeteners – an updated review. Food Addit Contam
23(4):327–338
23. Bright G (1999) Low-calorie sweeteners- from molecules to mass markets. In: Corti A
(ed) Lowcalorie sweeteners: present and future, vol 85, World Review of Nutrition and
Dietetics. S. Karger AG, Basel, pp 3–8
24. Godshall MA (2007) The expanding world of nutritive and non- nutritive sweeteners. Sugar J
69:12–20
25. Food and Drug Administration (2006) Artificial sweeteners: no calories. . .sweet! Retrieved
2 Aug from www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2006/406_sweeteners.html
26. Clauss J, Schmidt RK, Spiess HW (1993) Determination of domain sizes in heterogeneous
polymers by solid-state NMR. Acta Polym 44:1–17
27. Nabors LO (2002) Sweet choices: sugar replacements for foods and beverages. Food Technol
56:28–32
28. Horne J, Lawless HT, Speirs W, Sposato D (2002) Bitter taste of saccharin and acesulfame-
K. Chem Senses 31:8–27
29. Mazur RH, Goldkamp AH, James PA, Schlatter JM (1970) Structuretaste relationships of
aspartic acid amides. J Med Chem 6:1217–1221
30. Mazur RH, Ripper A (1979) Peptide-based sweeteners. Applied Science Publishers, London
31. Ager DJ, Pantaleone DP, Henderson SA, Katritzky AR, Prakash I, Walters DE (1998) Com-
mercial, synthetic nonnutritive sweeteners. Angew Chem Int Edit 37:1802–1817
32. Hill JB, Gelman Y, Dryden Jr HL, Erickson R, Hsu K, Johnson MR (1991) One-pot process for
the preparation of α-L-aspartyl-L-phenylalanine methyl ester hydrochloride. JustiaPatents US
Patent 5053532. http://patents.justia.com/1991/05053532.html. Accessed 15 June 2010
33. Prakash I (2007) Synthesis of N-[N-(3,3-dimethylbutyl)-L-α-aspartyl]-L-phenylalanine 1-methyl
ester using 3,3-dimethylbutyraldehyde precursors. Ip.com US Patent 7288670. http://ip.com/
patent/US7288670. Accessed 2 June 2010
34. Prakash I, Corliss G, Ponakala R, Ishikawa G (2002) Neotame: the next-generation sweetener.
Food Technol 56:36–40
35. Arnold DL (1983) Two-generation saccharin bioassays. Environ Health Perspect 50:27–36
36. Tarbell DS, Tarbell AT (1978) The discovery of saccharin. J Chem Educ 55:161–162
37. Beyts PK, Lillard DW, Batterman CK (1995) A sucralose compositon. PatentstromUS patent
5380541. http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5380541/fulltext.html. Accessed 21 Aug 2009
38. Bray GA, Nielsen SJ, Popkin BM (2004) Consumption of high-fructose corn syrup in beverages
may play a role in the epidemic of obesity. Am J Clin Nutr 79(4):537–543
39. Whitehouse CR, Boullata J, McCauley LA (2008) The potential toxicity of artificial sweeteners.
AAOHN J 56(6):251–259
40. Position of the American Dietetic Association (2008) Nutrition and lifestyle for a healthy
pregnancy. J Am Diet Assoc 108(3):553–561
41. Toxicological Evaluation of Certain Food Additives (1980) WHO Food Additives Series.16:11
42. Food and Drug Administration (1998) Food additives permitted for direct addition to food for
human consumption; Sucralose. 21CFR172.64
43. Food and Drug Administration (1998) Food additives permitted for direct addition to food for
human consumption: Neotame. Washington, DC: Federal Register; April 3, 1998 2002. 21 CFR
172.829.
44. Council on Scientific Affairs (1985) American Medical Association. Saccharin: review of safety
issues. JAMA 254:2622
45. American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (2011) Guideline on infant oral health care. http://
aapd.org/media/Policies_Guidelines/G_InfantOralHealthCare. pdf. Accessed 12 Dec 2011
46. Selwitz RH, Ismail AI, Pitts NB (2007) Dental caries. Lancet 369(9555):51–59
1 An Introduction to Sweeteners 13

47. National Institutes of Health (2001) Diagnosis and management of dental caries throughout life.
NIH Consensus Statement. http://consensus.nih.gov/2001/2001DentalCaries115html.htm.
Accessed 30 Apr 2011
48. Makinen K, Bennett C, Hujoel P, Isokangas P, Isotupa K, Pape HJ (1995) Xylitol chewing gums
and caries rates: a 40-month cohort study. J Dent Res 74:1904–1913
49. USDA, Economic Research Service (2008) Beverages. Per capita consumption. http://www.ers.
usda.gov/data/foodconsumption/spreadsheets/beverage.xls. Last accessed 26 Oct 2008
50. Kumar GS, Pan L, Park S, Lee-Kwan SH, Onufrak S, Blanck HM (2014) Sugar-sweetened
beverage consumption among adults. 18 states, 2012. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep
63(32):686–690
51. Malik VS, Pan A, Willett WC, Hu FB (2013) Sugar-sweetened beverages and weight gain in
children and adults. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Clin Nutr 98(4):1084–1102.
doi:10.3945/ajcn.113.058362
52. Levine A, Kotz C, Gosnell B (2003) Sugars: hedonic aspects, neuroregulation and energy
balance. Am J Clin Nutr 78:834S–842S
53. Meyer KA, Kushi LH, Jacobs DR Jr, Slavin J, Sellers TA, Folsom AR (2000) Carbohydrates,
dietary fiber, and incident type 2 diabetes in older women. Am J Clin Nutr 71:921–930
54. Colditz GA, Manson JE, Stampfer MJ, Rosner B, Willett WC, Speizer FE (1992) Diet and risk
of clinical diabetes in women. Am J Clin Nutr 55:1018–1023
55. Janket SJ, Manson JE, Sesso H, Buring JE, Liu S (2003) A prospective study of sugar intake and
risk of type 2 diabetes in women. Diabetes Care 26:1008–1015
56. Malerbi D, Paiva E, Duarte A, Wajchenberg B (1996) Metabolic effects of dietary sucrose and
fructose in type II diabetic subjects. Diabetes Care 19:1249–1256
57. Association AD (2003) Evidence-based nutrition principles and recommendations for the
treatment and prevention of diabetes and related complications. Diabetes Care 26:51S–61S
58. Jentjens RL, Jeukendrup AE (2003) Effects of pre-exercise ingestion of trehalose, galactose and
glucose on subsequent metabolism and cycling performance. Eur J Appl Physiol 88:459–465