One of my closest friends is a self-confessed sugar addict. For his birthday, my friend purchased a Tres Leches cake, complete with a large cup of Tres Leches just in case the Texas-style soaked cake wasn’t soaked enough. My friend ate his goopy cake slice with glee and then proceeded to drink the extra sugar goop straight from the cup.
In the past couple months he’s decided he needs a change, mostly because he’s been noticing pains in his legs when he gives into the sugar beast (yikes), and has been trying to cut out sugar. He called me recently whilst I was shopping at Central Market to ask, “Which do you think is worse: Coffee with non-dairy creamer and sugar or tea with a sugar substitute?”
Without hesitation I said, “In my humble opinion, the best option for you would be coffee with cream and sugar. Just go light on the cream and the sugar.” This prompted a discussion about whether or not sugar substitutes (SS) were as bad as people claim. Realizing I wasn’t exactly sure, I decided to do some digging…
Table of Contents
Sugar Substitutes and Cancer
Many people, as well as my past self, think of cancer when they hear the words “Nutrasweet”, “ Sweet n’ Low”, or “Splenda.” But is there really a link between SS’s and cancer? Keep reading and you’ll find out!
Saccharin – Sweet n’ Low
The cancer/sugar substitute scare originates from early studies linking the use of cyclamate (calcium salt) in combination with saccharin (Sweet n’Low) to bladder cancer in lab rats. The FDA required a warning label on all products containing saccharin, stating it had been found to cause cancer in lab rats. Holy bladders Batman!
HOWEVER, subsequent studies found that bladder cancer from saccharin was limited to rats only (because of some weird mystical rat mechanism that doesn’t occur in humans or other animals). Additionally, the rats were mega-dosed, fed amounts no human could ever consume in their entire lifetime. The equivalent would be if I force-fed rats five gallons of water, they died, and I announced, “water is deadly folks!”
Once all of this was figured out, saccharin was removed from the U.S. National Toxicology Program’s Report on Carcinogens. There is still no substantial evidence linking saccharin to cancer in humans, but the damage was already done to its reputation.
Aspartame – Equal, NutraSweet
The FDA originally deemed aspartame safe, but questions were raised when a study claimed there was a correlation between the increase of brain tumors between 1975-1992 and the use of aspartame. HOWEVER, statistics also showed an increase in brain tumors eight years before aspartame was introduced for human consumption.
BUT then in 2005, another study with our poor furry rat friends showed an increase of lymphoma and leukemia when given high doses of aspartame (equal to about 8-2,000 sodas per day…why do they do this…). BUT BUT, when another study was done on over a half a million humans, an increased use of aspartame was found to have no link to an increase in lymphoma, leukemia, or brain cancer.
Update to this extremely old post: BUT BUT BUT, in 2023 the World Health Organization (WHO) partnered up with the International Agency for Research on Cancer Research (IARC) to share the joint statement that there was “limited evidence” for carcinogenicity in humans. They also stated that there was no evidence that the acceptable daily intake (40 mg/kg/d) of aspartame should change, which would equal 15 diet sodas per day.
How did the public respond to this statement that basically said, “Hey y’all, no change to aspartame safety. You can still safely drink 1.5 gallons of diet soda per day and not worry about cancer. Oh, and don’t forget that pretty much everything is a ‘potential’ carcinogen. The ol’ IARC claims that drinking hot beverages is a potential human carcinogen.”
Well, they lost their minds of course. Headlines read, “WHO and IARC say Aspartame Causes Cancer!” and “Popular Artificial Sweetener Causes Cancer!” Conspiracy theorists and health purists felt vindicated, all while slurping down their All Natural Keto Wine that is a proven human carcinogen. Sweet.
Sucralose – Splenda
Over one hundred studies have been conducted on sucralose, and none of them have found any link to cancer or any other threat to human health. More on this later…
Ok, so no cancer. What about other effects from sugar substitute usage?
Well, cancer isn’t the only thing that’s bad out there…
A lot of these companies market their products as being “natural” because they originate from naturally occurring substances. Therefore, many people consider them to be safe. However, these products are synthetic, meaning that they are substances, “made by chemical synthesis, especially to imitate a natural product.” Synthetic products can sometimes have abnormal effects on the human body beyond increasing risk for cancer.
Weight Control and sugar substitutes
Most people choose SSs over sugar because they feel that sugar is an empty calorie “food” and want to cut their calorie consumption without sacrificing the sweet taste. Typical “I want it all without any work” humans! People with diabetes may also choose SSs because they generally have been found to have little affect blood sugar.
However, if your main concern is weight loss, some studies have shown that SSs can possibly have the opposite effect, screwing with your brain’s chemistry and causing you to eat more throughout the day. A more recent study monitored brain activity, glucose response, and self-reported hunger and reported that SSs may increase hunger (via various pathways), especially in people with obesity. Ruh roh. More research is definitely needed.
Digestive Health
In 2008, a study was published in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, stating that Splenda was found to “increase the PH level in rat intestines and reduce the amount of good bacteria in the intestines by 50%.” Um, trust me, you never want to kill good bacteria in your intestines if you can help it. Those gross little buggers are responsible for keeping your immune system in tiptop shape!
However, this study was again in rats. Therefore, it can’t be translated to humans. But it does raise the question of whether SSs would impact human intestines in the same way.
But wait! SSs have been linked to diarrhea, cramps, and bloating in humans! But but again, you know what else causes diarrhea, cramps, bloating and, depending on how frequently and how much you eat it, increased risk of developing chronic disease? Taco Bell.
Final Thoughts
There are a lot of “buts” to this situation. Obviously people have been known to freak-out and cry “cancer” in the past, only to find out later they were incorrect. But companies also have a lurid history of claiming their products are safe, only to be found out later (Olestra, Rely Tampons, BPAs, Phen Phen, rGHB, trans fats, Firestone tires, etc. etc. etc.).
But but, there is currently no scientific consensus and no body of credible research establishing that SSs are unsafe for most people. But but but, most of the research usually conducted on food additives ignores the digestive system (unless it’s investigating GI cancer). And some initial research in animals have raised questions about SSs and other additives negative impact on the microbiome as well as the protective mucosal layer in the GI tract. Other small-ish studies in humans, as mentioned earlier, have indicated a potential negative effect on hunger signaling.
All of this has my brain in a tizzy for now. I need to do a deeper dive into the updated research and write a whole new article. But here are my final thoughts:I personally have the privilege to err on the side of caution. I’m also really sensitive to SS flavors, so I try to avoid them. I simply use sugar in moderation. However, many people don’t have that privilege, e.g. people with blood sugar disorders, obesity, lack of whole food access, etc.
If you’re not concerned about SSs and notice no negative effects from use, I suggest you keep on keeping on. If you’re terrified of SSs, just avoid them. But whatever you do, the recommendations for both SSs and sugar are to consume in moderation.
Fat, salt, and sugar are all acquired tastes, meaning that the more you consume, the less tasty foods seem that have less of those products in them, or vice versa. For example, I was raised on non-fat milk until about the age of 12. When I finally tasted full-fat milk for the first time I almost hurled, thinking the milk had gone bad. Later I switched to full-fat milk, tasted non-fat again, and thought I was drinking white water. I used to automatically add salt to all of my food without thinking. After lowering my salt intake I discovered that even low-sodium soy sauce was too salty.
And finally, I used to never believe my sugar-free brother when he’d say something was “too sweet.” The words “too sweet” didn’t exist in my vocabulary, for I was someone who added buckets of sugar to my already sugary cereal so that there were delicious piles of wet sugar left at the bottom of my bowl. Overtime, I gradually and ever so slowly started to decrease the amount of sugar I would consume. I didn’t go on an insanely strict Whole 30 protocol or quit cold turkey. That shiz is not sustainable. Years later, most desserts are too sickeningly sweet to me.
Therefore, if you consume a lot of sugar and want to replace with an equally high amount of SSs, I recommend slowly reducing your sugar intake over time instead. For instance, if you drink 10 sodas per day, don’t switch to drinking 10 diet sodas per day. Start with drinking eight sodas per day, then six, then four, until finally you can happily switch to water. Replacing one sweet with another is not going to help you kick your “sweet” habit. You might need to retrain your pallet and brain not to crave the sweet instead.
I’ll write another post hopefully soon that digs deeper into the whole SS topic. I just reviewed this article about ten years after I first wrote it, and man…it needs an update!
