Last year, non-sugar sweeteners were thrown in the spotlight when the World Health Organization (WHO) advised against using them to lose weight. The recommendation came after researchers were unable to find a link between sweetener use and long-term body fat reduction in either adults or kids.
Since that time, non-sugar sweeteners have remained in the spotlight, with consumers increasingly concerned – and confused – about their impact on health. The reputation of non-sugar sweeteners has since taken another hit, with research associating consumption of saccharin and sucralose with elevated blood sugar levels.
Further compounding concerns are suggested links between non-sugar sweeteners and endocrine responses.
Funded by the Horizon 2020 program, researchers in the UK and France have sought to find out how much weight these studies should hold. When sweeteners and sweetness enhancers are used to replace sugar in foods, what effects do they have on appetite, hormones, and/or blood sugar levels?
Findings at odds with those of previous studies
In a double blind randomised controlled trial, researchers from Leeds University in the UK and the Rhône-Alpes Research Centre for Human Nutrition in France tested either sugar or two types of sweeteners – ‘natural’ sugar substitute stevia or artificial sweetener neotame (derived from aspartame) – on 53 adult men and women with overweight or obesity.
Over three two-week consumption periods, participants ate biscuits containing either a fruit filling containing sugar, stevia, or neotame. Glucose and insulin levels were measured, as were hormones associated with the consumption of food.
Findings were at odds with those of previous studies. The two sweetener types showed no differences in appetite or endocrine response compared to sugar. Insulin levels, on the other hand, were reduced, as were blood sugar levels.
The researchers hope their findings will help repair sweeteners’ reputational damage. “The use of sweeteners and sweetness enhancers has received a lot of negative attention, including high profile publications linked their consumption with glycaemic response toxicological damage to DNA and increased risk of heart attack and stroke,” said principal investigator Graham Finlayson, who serves as professor of psychobiology in Leeds’ School of Psychology.
“These reports contribute to the current befuddlement concerning the safety of sweeteners and sweetness enhancers among the general public and especially people at risk of metabolic diseases.
“Our study provides crucial evidence supporting the day-to-day use of sweetness enhancers for body weight and blood sugar control.”
Should sugar be swapped out for non-sugar sweeteners?
Ultimately, the findings support the day-to-day use of sweeteners and sweetness enhancers for body weight and blood sugar control.
“Reducing sugar consumption has become a key public health target in the fight to reduce the rising burden of obesity-related metabolic diseases such as type 2 diabetes,” said lead author Dr Catherine Gibbons, associate professor in Leeds’ School of Psychology.
“Simply restricting sugar from foods without substitution may negatively impact its taste or increase sugar cravings, resulting in difficulties sticking to a low-sugar diet. Replacing sugars with sweeteners and sweetness enhancers in food products is one of the most widely used dietary and food manufacturing strategies to reduce sugar intake and improve the nutritional profile of commercial foods and beverages.”
The findings are not the first to come out of the Horizon 2020 funded SWEET project.
What is the SWEET project?
The five-year project aims to develop and review evidence on long-term benefits and potential risks involved in switching over to sweeteners and sweetness enhancers in the context of public health and safety, obesity, and sustainability.
Last year, FoodNavigator reported on a SWEET project finding linking sweetener use and environmental sustainability. According to a life cycle assessment, production of steviol glycosides extracted from stevia grown in Europe produces just 10% of the greenhouse gas emissions associated with sugar production.
The cradle-to-factory gate LCA focused on global warming potential, freshwater eutrophication (accumulation of nutrients in freshwater sources), water consumption, and land use.
“The use of steviol glycosides and similar natural products could be sweet news for the health of our planet,” commented lead author Dr James Suckling from the University of Surrey at the time.
“My hope is that industry takes reassurance that if they choose to use steviol rebaudioside A 60% (RA60) made from leaves, instead of sugar, they are not going to cause unintended negative environmental impact.”
Source: The Lancet eBioMedicine
‘Acute and two-week effects of neotame, stevia revaudioside M and sucrose-sweetened biscuits on postprandial appetite and endocrine response in adults with overweight/obesity – a randomised crossover trial from the SWEET consortium
Published 28 March 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ebiom.2024.105005
Authors: Catherine Gibbons, Kristine Beaulieu, Graham Finlayson et al.
