Slashdot Mirror
Artificial Sweeteners Are Toxic To Digestive Gut Bacteria, Study Finds (cnbc.com)
According to a study published in the journal Molecules, researchers found that six common artificial sweeteners approved by the FDA and 10 sport supplements that contained them were found to be toxic to the digestive gut microbes of mice. CNBC reports: Researchers from Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Israel and Nanyang Technological University in Singapore tested the toxicity of aspartame, sucralose, saccharine, neotame, advantame, and acesulfame potassium-k. They observed that when exposed to only 1 milligram per milliliter of the artificial sweeteners, the bacteria found in the digestive system became toxic. According to the study, the gut microbial system "plays a key role in human metabolism," and artificial sweeteners can "affect host health, such as inducing glucose intolerance." Additionally, some of the effects of the new FDA-approved sweeteners, such as neotame, are still unknown.
However, the study found that mice treated with the artificial sweetener neotame had different metabolic patterns than those not treated, and several important genes found in the human gut had decreased. Additionally, concentrations of several fatty acids, lipids and cholesterol were higher in mice treated with neotame than in those not. Because of the widespread use of artificial sweeteners in drinks and foods, many people consume them without knowing it.
However, the study found that mice treated with the artificial sweetener neotame had different metabolic patterns than those not treated, and several important genes found in the human gut had decreased. Additionally, concentrations of several fatty acids, lipids and cholesterol were higher in mice treated with neotame than in those not. Because of the widespread use of artificial sweeteners in drinks and foods, many people consume them without knowing it.
Please correct the text, the referenced study is about neotame only and does not investigate the other mentioned molecules or products. The CNBC article is probably to blame as it is misleading on which results were obtained in which study.
To be clear here, because TFS is a mess, there are two separate papers by two separate research teams. The paper described in the first line of the summary is this one, looking at a mix of supplements and how they affected bioluminescent reporting in bacteria. The paper which is linked in the first sentence ( this one ) is the one which looked at Neotame exposed mice, referred to in the last paragraph of TFS.
They were actually more diligent than you, as the second link goes to a CNN article, which quotes from a press release that links to a different article, and this article indeed was reporting about six artificial sweeteners: "In this study, the relative toxicity of six FDA-approved artificial sweeteners (aspartame, sucralose, saccharine, neotame, advantame and acesulfame potassium-k (ace-k)) and that of ten sport supplements containing these artificial sweeteners, were tested using genetically modified bioluminescent bacteria from E. coli." So before complaining, always wonder if it is your fault.
The summary is a mess. Still, there are quite many studies that indicate that non-nutritive sweeteners are associated with increased risk to develop obesity, metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... And their effects on gut bacteria is the main suspect for this.
If you look at the materials something is created from, you could also say that organic food is made from dirt, mud and manure.
The second article is indeed better, but it is an in-vitro study. While the in-vitro results are interesting and definitely an indicator as to how these substances might act in-vivo, it is not the whole story.
The slashdot headline and summary is a little misleading and alarmist, but the takeaway, that artificial sweeteners might not be good for our gut biome, is probably worth further investigation.
This one's tricky. You have to use imaginary numbers, like eleventeen... --Hobbes
AC, this is not difficult.
The substances being tested are crystalline solids at room temperature. They are dissolved in a solvent.
In this case, at a concentration of 1mg : 1mL, as an aqueous solution.
Granted, that is pretty damn concentrated. But still.
Particularly for sucralose, which is 600x as sweet as sugar. 1mg/ml would be sickly sweet. I generally use 0.1mg/ml in making my own sugar-free cordials (I'm diabetic).
They didn't become dead. The specially engineered e-coli strains become luminescent. Whatever that means for your gut health is anyone's guess.
Link to the original paper. Not paywalled, sweet. (see what I did there?)
The summaries, mindlessly cut and pasted several levels deep including in the /. summary, really suck. According to the summaries, the bacteria "became toxic". No they didn't, please get a clue.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Okay, just to make this clear because it's useful knowledge. Bacteria may produce toxic waste, and these toxins can be the reason why you may get inflammations, may bleed internally, may have to vomit and/or get diarrhoea when your stomach gets infested by the wrong bacteria. Some of them produce so strong toxins that they perforate your intestines, leading to life threatening conditions (e.g. typhus does that). Dying and dead bacteria also produce toxins for a while. Part of the problem is the reaction of the immune system, part are the toxins emitted by bacteria. Chronic diseases of the stomach and intestinal system can also be caused by an improper balance of bacteria. Anything that changes the balance of bacteria in the stomach - which strains are present in which quantity - can be potentially dangerous or beneficial, depending on which strains are boosted or hampered.
Just wanted to make this clear because your comment was upvoted (only God knows why) and is pretty pointless.
a) very few savanna living prehistoric people, as we evolved to be, encountered actual coal;
b) even your coal eating county dweller tends to encounter either raw coal or the combustion products of coal - specially made chemicals from coal a bit less so
Widespread encounters with coal really didn't happen until the start of the industrial era - and yes that does mean we are starting to evolve, but the way that happens is by some people dying which isn't always great.
If only humans could change and adapt to living conditions/diets outside of the savanna.
eg. Pale skin, lactose tolerance ... to name a couple of the most glaringly obvious examples.
No sig today...
Neotame is 7000-13000 times as sweet as sugar.
"Close the door! What, were you born in a barn?" -- Police chief, "Jesus Christ Supercop"
... if you read the paper... they are administering 2.5 times the FDA recommended dose of Sweat and Low... the mice showed no signs of ill health or altered behavior... and the "toxic" is a little bit of a stretch... there were changes in gut bacteria populations but that happens whenever you change a diet to anything else.
Did someone else get a different read on this thing? I went through the "method" section which is where I always start whenever I read a paper. Straight to the method... aka what did you actually do?
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Except, Jane, you're "dead" wrong. "became dead" appears nowhere in the article, neither does "dead" appear nor is there any claim that "toxic" means death. Furthermore, the article states "bacteria growth rates were also affected" which is a bit hard to understand if the bacteria were "dead". "Toxic" refers to a positive response with one or more toxicity indicators, that is all. Try to get it straight next time.
There were egregious errors, though. First, it wasn't "bacteria found in the digestive system" that "became toxic", it was genetically modified bacteria that showed a toxic response. Second, only one sweetener caused this response at 1 mg/ml. None of the others did.
Furthermore, "only" 1 mg/ml is a lot. These sweeteners are much stronger than sugar and these concentrations would not exist in actual applications. Lower concentrations did not demonstrate a toxic response in the study.
Isn't it curious that so many artificial sweeteners all cause this "calamity" as shown in a single study? I wonder what special interest group would have interest in an outcome like this, particularly considering the gross misrepresentation of the results.
You know what known to be toxic? Sugar. Not toxic merely to gut bacteria, toxic to you.
Absurdity is not defined by whether something is more or less absurd than something else that is absurd.
1 mg/ml is vastly higher than would actually be used. Furthermore, it was the minimum threshold for a positive response for only one of the tested sweeteners. All other required higher concentrations still, including neotame which is at least 10x stronger than Sucralose (the one with a response at 1mg/ml). With neotame, the concentrations required would be 100 - 1000 times stronger than what would be typically used. Sounds pretty absurd.
Step 1) Get the country hooked on sugar - Check and Profit
Step 2) Make a fortune of diabetes treatments - Check and Profit
Step 3) Develop and market tons of different artificial "no/low calorie" sweeteners and market to people now suffering from obesity - Check and Profit
Step 4) ???
Step 5) Profit Profit Profit!
You know what known to be toxic? Sugar. Not toxic merely to gut bacteria, toxic to you.
Just for fun I looked up the LD50 for sugar. A 180 lbs person would need to consume 5.2 lbs of sugar to get to a 50% chance of dying from it. Toxic yes, but at impossibly high amounts. I get what your saying, sugar isn't good for you, but its toxicity level is pretty damn low.