Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Artificial Sweeteners Are Toxic To Digestive Gut Bacteria, Study Finds (cnbc.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the naturally-sweetened dept.

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.

8 of 192 comments (clear)

  1. These results are not correctly referenced by fredrikv · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:These results are not correctly referenced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      The CNBC article confuses two studies: Neotame in mice and Artificial sweeteners on a bacterial panel.

      The second of these does indeed test the toxicity of all the named sweeteners, albeit only on a model of gut bacteria (bioluminescent E.coli) in a laboratory setting.

      Sucralose and neotame were found to inhibit E.coli bioluminescence. Saccharin, aspartame and ace-k induced it.

      What does that mean? Your guess is as good as mine.

    2. Re:These results are not correctly referenced by afxgrin · · Score: 5, Informative

      Directly from the paper in the summary:

      Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA
      Department of Environmental Health Science, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA
      Department of Population Health and Pathobiology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27607, USA

      None of these are Ben-Gurion University or Nanyang Technological University.
      The correct paper is:
      Measuring Artificial Sweeteners Toxicity Using a Bioluminescent Bacterial Panel

    3. Re:These results are not correctly referenced by necro81 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Or maybe CO, which is OK because it's one less.

      Actually, yes, death by carbon monoxide poisoning would be preferrable to carbon dioxide.

      In the former case, you get drowsy, fall asleep, and eventually asphyxiate. CO binds to hemoglobin, preventing your blood from taking up oxygen. You die of hypoxia, which is generally thought of being pretty painless. (If hypoxia were painful, then high-altitude mountaineering would be impossible, rather than just merely hard.) A similar death would occur in a depressurized airline cabin if you don't put your mask on. CO poisoning happens to a 100s of people each year in the U.S. due to faulty heating systems. One reason deaths result is because people aren't aware that it's even happening - they just fall asleep, then die. This is why your home should have at least one CO detector per floor.

      Carbon dioxide poisoning, on the other hand, is definitely a rough way to go. Hold your breath for a while and you'll see what I mean. That panic you're feeling, the tightening of the chest, the burning, that's caused by your brainstem realizing your blood has built up too much CO2. At low levels, high CO2 concentration in the air will make your irritable, give you a headache, and generally make it hard to function at your best. (Astronaut Scott Kelly complained about this a lot during his year on the ISS.) Taken higher, and your entire body becomes acidotic, and that feeling of drowning becomes all-encompassing. Eventually, your metabolism will break down at a cellular level as your blood becomes saturated with CO2. You'll have passed out long before that, but your last conscious moments will probably be in agony.

  2. Re:That's just gut-wrenching by religionofpeas · · Score: 5, Informative

    They didn't become dead. The specially engineered e-coli strains become luminescent. Whatever that means for your gut health is anyone's guess.

  3. Re:That's just gut-wrenching by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  4. Re:"only one milligram per milliliter of sweetener by Rei · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Neotame is 7000-13000 times as sweet as sugar.

    --
    "Close the door! What, were you born in a barn?" -- Police chief, "Jesus Christ Supercop"
  5. Re:That's just gut-wrenching by dfghjk · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.