Is this sugar substitute safe? I don't think it's stevia

Replies

  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 10,093 Member
    I don't know. I do know that cyclamates are banned in food and drink in the U.S.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,223 Member
    It's definitely not Stevia, monkfruit, or anything of the sort. It appears to be a sugar sub that's made from chemical compounds. Now, I don't think "chemical" is a synonym for "evil", as some people do. Many vitamin supplements are purely made from chemical compounds. At heart, everything we eat is chemicals. What matters is whether the chemicals are safe and useful in the quantities we eat.

    You can look up the two sweeteners (sodium cyclamate and sodium saccharine) online from reputable sources to learn about them. Yes, cyclamate is banned in the US because of concerns that it might contribute to causing cancer, but the underlying research is controversial, and many countries allow it.

  • spacetreemonkey
    spacetreemonkey Posts: 171 Member
    lynn_glenmont wrote: »
    I don't know. I do know that cyclamates are banned in food and drink in the U.S.
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    Yes, cyclamate is banned in the US because of concerns that it might contribute to causing cancer, but the underlying research is controversial, and many countries allow it.

    Yikes!
  • PAPYRUS3
    PAPYRUS3 Posts: 13,259 Member
    It's a blend of the following...I personally wouldn't be using this stuff...

    Sodium Saccharin
    Saccharin, also called saccharine or benzosulfimide, or used in saccharin sodium or saccharin calcium forms, is a non-nutritive artificial sweetener. Saccharin is a benzoic sulfimide that is about 500 times sweeter than sucrose, but has a bitter or metallic aftertaste, especially at high concentrations.

    Cyclamic acid, calcium cyclamate and sodium cyclamate share E-number 952 and are called cyclamates. It is an artificial sweetener that is 30 times sweeter than sugar. It was approved as a sweetener in the USA in 1951 but was completely banned in 1970. It is however an approved ingredient in the EU.
  • rileysowner
    rileysowner Posts: 8,328 Member
    edited September 2023
    I would rather use aspartame personally (unless you are baking with it), or monkfruit, allulose, or erythritol. I don't like the aftertaste from saccharin or cyclamates. As for safety, no idea, but someone else has mentioned that.
  • IvoryParchment
    IvoryParchment Posts: 651 Member
    Cyclamates were associated with bladder cancer in rats. However, it's very hard to design a study to compare rats with humans, since rats excrete the cyclamates into their urine so efficiently that you have to give them massive doses in their diet to get the equivalent blood levels as in humans. That means you're putting much higher levels in the bladder. Plus rats get cancer if you just look at them cross-eyed. You probably wouldn't get the same results in other animals like guinea pigs.
  • spacetreemonkey
    spacetreemonkey Posts: 171 Member
    PAPYRUS3 wrote: »
    It's a blend of the following...I personally wouldn't be using this stuff...

    Sodium Saccharin
    Saccharin, also called saccharine or benzosulfimide, or used in saccharin sodium or saccharin calcium forms, is a non-nutritive artificial sweetener. Saccharin is a benzoic sulfimide that is about 500 times sweeter than sucrose, but has a bitter or metallic aftertaste, especially at high concentrations.

    Cyclamic acid, calcium cyclamate and sodium cyclamate share E-number 952 and are called cyclamates. It is an artificial sweetener that is 30 times sweeter than sugar. It was approved as a sweetener in the USA in 1951 but was completely banned in 1970. It is however an approved ingredient in the EU.

    500 times sweeter? wow. I haven't noticed a bitter taste. If something is banned in the USA I would be extremely cautious.
  • spacetreemonkey
    spacetreemonkey Posts: 171 Member
    rileysowner wrote: »
    I would rather use aspartame personally

    I thought that was unsafe?
  • spacetreemonkey
    spacetreemonkey Posts: 171 Member
    IvoryParchment wrote: »
    Cyclamates were associated with bladder cancer in rats. However, it's very hard to design a study to compare rats with humans, since rats excrete the cyclamates into their urine so efficiently that you have to give them massive doses in their diet to get the equivalent blood levels as in humans. That means you're putting much higher levels in the bladder. Plus rats get cancer if you just look at them cross-eyed. You probably wouldn't get the same results in other animals like guinea pigs.

    Yikes, I would rather not have cancer.
  • fabgeekmom
    fabgeekmom Posts: 635 Member
    I don’t use any artificial sweeteners.
  • zamphir79
    zamphir79 Posts: 21 Member
    edited September 2023
    spacetreemonkey wrote: »
    rileysowner wrote: »
    I would rather use aspartame personally

    I thought that was unsafe?

    Aspartame is perfectly safe.
    https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1308408/why-aspartame-isnt-scary/p1
  • fabgeekmom
    fabgeekmom Posts: 635 Member
    I think everyone has to make their own decision about artificial sweeteners. Moderation is key.
  • cpaw1122
    cpaw1122 Posts: 4 Member
    I,m curious now… is stevia considered unsafe now too? I thought it was derived naturally…
  • spacetreemonkey
    spacetreemonkey Posts: 171 Member
    cpaw1122 wrote: »
    I,m curious now… is stevia considered unsafe now too? I thought it was derived naturally…

    Pretty sure stevia is a safe choice
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,282 Member
    I would say they are all safe choices - in sensible amounts, of course.
  • MacLowCarbing
    MacLowCarbing Posts: 350 Member
    Every artificial sweetener has sources painting as wonderful and other sources painting it as terrible.

    I think the key is use them sparingly a couple times a week, and when I do use them I'll alternate different kinds so I'm not always using the same type. Used sparingly, I can't imagine they'd be doing terrible harm.

Categories