Sweeteners Guide

Extensive sweeteners

Extensive sweeteners are part of the chemical group of sugar alcohols, also known as polyols. They have approximately the same sweetening power as sugar, but contribute less to the daily energy supply. Several sugar alcohols occur naturally in fruits and vegetables. However, most are processed from other sugars. Polyols are as sweet as sugar and have a similar taste. However, they provide just over half the energy of sugar, i.e. 2.4 kcal per gram [6].

Examples of extensive sweeteners

Xylitol (E967) is the most researched polyol found naturally in small amounts in fruits and leafy vegetables. However, it is mainly produced industrially on a large scale today. Xylitol has the same sweetness as sugar and is the sweetest of all polyols.

Another example of an extensive sweetener is erythritol (E968). It is produced by the fermentation of glucose in cornstarch and is less sweet than sugar. For this reason, there are combinations of erythritol and other sweeteners on the market [7,8].

Are extensive sweeteners safe to consume?

Because polyols are absorbed slowly and incompletely in the small intestine, they contain fewer calories than sugar. That sounds like an advantage, but it also has its drawbacks. They can cause gastrointestinal discomfort, such as bloating and a laxative effect, when consumed in large doses. Fortunately, erythritol is relatively well absorbed compared to other polyols. The laxative threshold for erythritol is estimated at 0.80 g/kg of body weight for women and 0.66 g/kg for men, respectively. For all polyols, a maximum dose without laxative effects is set. The key lesson here is to stay below these doses. Your gut health can be affected much sooner even before you notice anything, such as diarrhea or other symptoms. Sugar alcohols may seem like the key ingredient for an alcoholic brunch, but nothing could be further from the truth. Polyols do not contain ethanol and are therefore suitable for teetotalers [6,9].

Do extensive sweeteners affect insulin and appetite?

Although extensive sweeteners contain calories, an important property of these sweeteners is that they do not raise or barely raise blood sugar levels [6].

Intensive sweeteners

Intensive sweeteners have a much higher sweetening power than sugar (sucrose) or extensive sweeteners and, if required in very small quantities, produce few or no calories. Since the advent of modern chemistry in the late 19th century, laboratories have synthesized hundreds of substances with a sweet taste. Only a few of these are currently used as sweeteners in the food industry. So what happened to the others? They were rejected due to cost, negative toxicity results, or a predominantly strong aftertaste. More specifically, the seven intense sweeteners that are currently approved for use in foods have gone through many tests to achieve this status [4,6].

Examples of intensive sweeteners

The sweetest sweetener currently known is Thaumatin (E957), which has a sweetening power of 2000 to 3000 times the sweetness of sucrose. Thaumatin is considered natural as it is obtained from the tropical plant Thaumatococcus danielli . Despite its sweetness, Thaumatin has a licorice-like taste, which limits its industrial uses. Another natural sweetener is Stevioside, better known as Stevia (E960). It is extracted from the leaves of the perennial herbaceous plant Stevia Rebaudiana bertoni , also known as "the sweet herb of Paraguay". Stevia has an overall sweetening power of 200 to 300 times the sweetness of sucrose. This depends largely on the type of steviol glycosides, of which there are 11 on the market.

Also, aspartame (E951) is probably one of the first sweeteners that comes to mind when you think of sweeteners. This sweetener was discovered by chance and is the most popular artificial sweetener today. Although aspartame is manufactured synthetically, it consists of two natural protein building blocks, phenylalanine and aspartic acid. Although aspartame is safe for consumption, there is one exception: people suffering from the rare disease PKU (phenylketonuria) cannot completely break down and excrete aspartame, which is a major drawback for industrial use. Another intensive sweetener, without this problem, is sucralose (E955). Sucralose is a synthetically produced sweetener made by processing conventional sugar (sucrose). This was first executed by a British sugar manufacturer in collaboration with an American company, which gave it the brand name Splenda. The sweetener was given the JECFA (Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives) designation of 'safe' in 1990. In the European Union, sucralose has been authorised as a substance in a wide range of food products since 2004. Sucralose has a sweetening potency of approximately 600 times the sweetness of sucrose. Unlike other sweeteners, its taste and bulking properties are similar to conventional sugar. Sucralose is poorly absorbed, 5-20% enters the blood and is excreted in the urine in unchanged form [6,10-17].

Are intensive sweeteners safe to consume?

The answer is very short. Yes they are! As noted above, the EFSA has thoroughly evaluated any sweetener on the market. Specifically for sucralose, there are some rumors about its side effects that are linked to the disruption of the gut microbiome. This would, of course, be a reason to remove sucralose from the safe list, so we delve into this topic. So, let’s see what all the fuss is about. These rumors are based on a specific study that was published in 2008, conducted among rats that ingested more sucralose than any human would. In addition to the unrealistic amounts, an Expert Panel found that the study lacked critical areas for which its reliability is questionable. And there’s more! The structure of sucralose is extremely resilient, so it is highly unlikely to degrade and change the gut microbiota. For most useful and available artificial sweeteners, particularly sucralose, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence confirming their safety for people in non-extreme amounts. To ensure that these amounts are not exceeded, an ADI (Acceptable Daily Intake) is established for all sweeteners [18-23].

Do intensive sweeteners affect insulin and appetite?

Since artificial sweeteners contain no calories, they do not raise blood sugar or insulin levels or affect glycemic control. In addition, artificial sweeteners also do not increase appetite, but they may increase appetite if you eat them between meals, as snacks do. Although some epidemiological data seem to suggest that artificial sweeteners cause weight gain, this relationship works the other way around: artificial sweeteners are often used by people trying to lose weight. In other words: it is overweight people who often use sweeteners to lose weight, not sweeteners that make people overweight. Relatedly, sweeteners stimulate their preference for sweet products, but all sweet foods have this effect [18, 24-30].

Natural or artificial sweeteners, what's the difference?

After reading about the different sweeteners or the market, you might be wondering what the real difference is between natural and artificial sweeteners. Artificial sweeteners like sucralose are among the most controversial topics in the industry. But does it earn its reputation? Take, for example, the chemical classification of aspartame, E951 (E number 951). This name is something that scares a lot of people, for being “unnatural.” Same goes for the other 1500 E numbers, which are considered “artificial,” but include plain turmeric and vitamin C. Other than that, everything in the world is “chemical.” Natural substances are formed through chemical processes. For example, the chemical structure of glucose is called C6H12O6: 6 carbon atoms, 12 hydrogen atoms, and 6 oxygen atoms. Artificially produced glucose is nothing different from glucose from “natural” sources, i.e. no better and no worse. [6]

Perceived healthiness, naturalness and quality of natural and artificial sweeteners

To assess the difference between a “natural” and “artificial” sweetener incorporated into Plenny Shake, a study was conducted among Jimmy Joy customers (n=130). We first showed the label that had sucralose (artificial) in the ingredient list. We then asked them to rate the perceived healthiness, naturalness, and quality on a 7-point scale. Here, a high number indicates a high score on perceived healthiness/naturalness/quality. We did the same for stevia (natural). After analyzing the results, some conclusions can be drawn. First, the perceived healthiness was the same for both stevia and sucralose, as visualized in Figure 1. Second, the perceived healthiness for the product with stevia was slightly higher than for the product with sucralose (Figure 2). Finally, the perceived quality of the product with sucralose was slightly higher than that of the product with stevia (Figure 3). However, none of these differences were found to be statistically significant, meaning that the small differences may be due to chance. In conclusion, the results clearly suggest that natural and artificial ingredients can lead to the same consumer perception.

Figure 1 : Comparison of perceived healthiness of Plenny Shake sweetened with sucralose and stevia

Figure 2: Comparison of the perceived naturalness of Plenny Shake sweetened with sucralose and stevia

Figure 3: Comparison of the perceived quality of Plenny Shake sweetened with sucralose and stevia

Sweeteners in Jimmy Joy

The flavoured varieties of Plenny Shake, Plenny Bar and Plenny Drink contain a small amount of sucralose, which is summarised in the table below – this is what we believe is enough to contribute to that great taste. If you don't want sweeteners, we offer an unflavoured and unsweetened version of Plenny Shake Active which contains no flavourings, sucralose or any other sweeteners. You can browse through our entire range of products here!

Conclusion

If you want your food to be sweeter (and who doesn't?), stick to zero-calorie sweeteners. They're a way to enhance the flavor of your food, without the drawbacks of sugars and sugar alcohols.

All currently approved and legal artificial sweeteners are perfectly safe to consume if consumed below the maximum recommended intake. To put this into perspective, a healthy person weighing 60 kilograms can consume around 60 Plenny shakes per day.

We are always looking for new and innovative ingredients. Let us know if you think we should investigate a specific ingredient.

Sources

1. Gelski J. Europeans seek to avoid added sugar, too [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2020 Feb 7].

2. Siegner C. Majority of US consumers prefer to cut sugar intake than switch to artificial sweeteners [Internet]. Food Dive. 2019 [cited 2020 Mar 11].
3. Chattopadhyay S, Raychaudhuri U, Chakraborty R. Artificial sweeteners – a review. J Food Sci Technol. 2014 Apr;51(4):611–21.
4. Maragkoudakis P. Sugars and Sweeteners [Internet]. EU Science Hub - European Commission. 2020 [cited 2020 Mar 24].
5. Snelson M, Coughlan M. Explainer: what are E numbers and should you avoid them in your diet? [Internet]. The Conversation. [cited 2020 Oct 10].
6. Jong, F. M. (2016). Ons voedsel (6th edition). Fontaine Uitgevers.
7. Salli K, Lehtinen MJ, Tiihonen K, Ouwehand AC. Xylitol's Health Benefits beyond Dental Health: A Comprehensive Review. Nutrients [Internet]. 2019 Aug 6 [cited 2020 Oct 9];11(8).
8. Boesten DMPHJ, den Hartog GJM, de Cock P, Bosscher D, Bonnema A, Bast A. Health effects of erythritol. Nutrafoods. 2015 Mar 1;14(1):3–9.
9. Oku T, Okazaki M. Laxative threshold of sugar alcohol erythritol in human subjects. Nutr Res 1996 Apr 1;16(4):577–89.
10. Joseph JA, Akkermans S, Nimmegeers P, Van Impe JFM. Bioproduction of the Recombinant Sweet Protein Thaumatin: Current State of the Art and Perspectives. Front Microbiol [Internet]. 2019 Apr 8 [cited 2020 Feb 13];10.
11. Samuel P, Ayoob KT, Magnuson BA, Wölwer-Rieck U, Jeppesen PB, Rogers PJ, et al. Stevia Leaf to Stevia Sweetener: Exploring Its Science, Benefits, and Future Potential. J Nutr. 2018 Jul 1;148(7):1186S-1205S.
12. European Food Safety Authority. Scientific opinion on the safety of the extension of use of steviol glycosides (E 960) as a food additive. EFSA J [Internet]. 2015 Jun 30 [cited 2020 Feb 14];
13. Amchra FZ, Al Faiz C, Chaouqi S, Khiraoui A, Benhmimou A, Guedira T. Effect of Stevia rebaudiana, sucrose and aspartame on human health: A comprehensive review. J Med Plants Stud [Internet]. [cited 2020 Feb 14];
14. Blundell JE, Hill AJ. Paradoxical effects of an intense sweetener (aspartame) on appetite. Lancet London Engl. 1986 May 10;1(8489):1092–3.
15. Tey SL, Salleh NB, Henry J, Forde CG. Effects of aspartame-, monk fruit-, stevia- and sucrose-sweetened beverages on postprandial glucose, insulin and energy intake. Int J Obes 2005. 2017;41(3):450–7.
16. Aguilar F, Crebelli R, Domenico AD, Dusemund B, Frutos MJ, Galtier P, et al. Statement on the validity of the conclusions of a mouse carcinogenicity study on sucralose (E 955) performed by the Ramazzini Institute. EFSA J. 2017;15(5):e04784.
17. Knight I. The development and applications of sucralose, a new high-intensity sweetener. Can J Physiol Pharmacol. 1994 Apr;72(4):435–9.
18. Magnuson BA, Roberts A, Nestmann ER. Critical review of the current literature on the safety of sucralose. Food Chem Toxicol Int J Publ Br Ind Biol Res Assoc. 2017 Aug;106(Pt A):324–55.
19. Tandel KR. Sugar substitutes: Health controversy over perceived benefits. J Pharmacol Pharmacother. 2011;2(4):236–43.
20. Sims J, Roberts A, Daniel JW, Renwick AG. The metabolic fate of sucralose in rats. Food Chem Toxicol Int J Publ Br Ind Biol Res Assoc. 2000;38 Suppl 2:S115-121.
21. Thomson P, Santibañez R, Aguirre C, Galgani JE, Garrido D. Short-term impact of sucralose consumption on the metabolic response and gut microbiome of healthy adults. Br J Nutr. 2019 28;122(8):856–62.
22. Young DA, Bowen WH. The influence of sucralose on bacterial metabolism. J Dent Res. 1990 Aug;69(8):1480–4.
23. Omran A, Ahearn G, Bowers D, Swenson J, Coughlin C. Metabolic effects of sucralose on environmental bacteria. J Toxicol. 2013;2013:372986.
24. Stern SB, Bleicher SJ, Flores A, Gombos G, Recitas D, Shu J. Administration of aspartame in non-insulin-dependent diabetics. J Toxicol Environ Health. 1976 Nov 1;2(2):429–39.
25. Evert AB, Boucher JL, Cypress M, Dunbar SA, Franz MJ, Mayer-Davis EJ, et al. Nutrition Therapy Recommendations for the Management of Adults With Diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2013 Nov;36(11):3821–42.
26. Grotz VL, Henry RR, McGill JB, Prince MJ, Shamoon H, Trout JR, et al. Lack of effect of sucralose on glucose homeostasis in subjects with type 2 diabetes. J Am Diet Assoc. 2003 Dec 1;103(12):1607–12.
27. Behnen EMT, Ferguson MC, Carlson A. Do Sugar Substitutes Have Any Impact on Glycemic Control in Patients with Diabetes? J Pharm Technol. 2013 Mar 1;29(2):61–5.
28. Mattes RD, Popkin BM. Nonnutritive sweetener consumption in humans: effects on appetite and food intake and their putative mechanisms123. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 Jan;89(1):1–14.
29. Drewnowski A, Rehm CD. The use of low-calorie sweeteners is associated with self-reported prior intent to lose weight in a representative sample of US adults. Nutri Diabetes. 2016 Mar;6(3):e202–e202.
30. Yang Q. Gain weight by “going diet?” Artificial sweeteners and the neurobiology of sugar cravings. Yale J Biol Med. 2010 Jun;83(2):101–8.