More Problems From Sucralose & Stevia?

A few years ago, we examined some news about sucralose, thus: The Sucralose News: Scaremongering Or Serious?

…and the short version is that initial headlines are often not a completely honest representation of the truth (in the above case, the reality was “this doesn’t look good, but we need to do a lot more science to declare it with confidence”).

We wrote about that, too: How Science News Outlets Can Lie To You (Yes, Even If They Cite Studies!)

There is also a general recommendation against sweeteners of any kind, based on the logic that sweetening things, no matter with what, can lead to a slippery slope of craving increasingly sweeter things, which is generally a bad idea.

You can see what the WHO had to say about that (and why), here: The Problem With Sweeteners

The WHO recommendation (avoid sweeteners) applied to artificial and naturally-occurring non-sugar sweeteners, such as:

• Acesulfame K
• Advantame
• Aspartame
• Cyclamates
• Neotame
• Saccharin
• Stevia

So yes, stevia (generally considered one of the relatively least bad sweeteners) made the list, despite that moderate consumption of stevia improves gut microdiversity, which you can read about here: The Effects of Stevia Consumption on Gut Bacteria: Friend or Foe?

Meanwhile, sucralose didn’t make the list of non-sugar sweeteners to avoid as it is technically a sugar (even if the body doesn’t process it as such).

As a quick aside: readers with good memories may recall that we’ve sometimes recommended xylitol for good oral health (it’s not just “not too bad as sweeteners go”, it actively does good things too; the crux is that it’s being used in the mouth (such as with xylitol-sweetened gum) but not actually ingested in meaningful amounts.

You can learn more about that here: Xylitol: Cavity Fighter Or Gut Disruptor? The Dose Makes the Poison

So, what’ the latest on sucralose and stevia?

Sweetening future generations

Researchers (Dr. Francisca Concha Celume et al.) have found that sucralose and stevia changed the gut microbiome, reduced short-chain fatty acids produced by gut bacteria, and altered genes involved in metabolism, inflammation, and gut-barrier function.

“In good ways?”, you ask?

No, not in good ways.

• Sucralose had stronger effects: sucralose produced larger and more persistent microbiome changes, including more potentially pathogenic bacteria and fewer beneficial species. Its effects on genes associated with inflammation and metabolism remained detectable two generations later, which is quite impressive.
• Stevia had weaker effects: stevia also changed gene activity, but the effects were less pronounced and generally did not persist beyond the first generation.

The most likely epigenetic mechanism: because short-chain fatty acids can influence gene regulation, the researchers suggest that changes in gut bacteria and their metabolites could contribute to altered gene expression, explaining why some effects appeared in later generations.

See also: Stop Sabotaging Your Gut

You can read the paper in full, here: Artificial and natural non-nutritive sweeteners drive divergent gut and genetic responses across generations

So, what’s the least bad sweetener?

We recommend just skipping sweeteners, but if you really want to, we previously did a rundown on:

• Sucrose (metabolic problems)
• Sucralose (genotoxic)
• Erythritol (ischemiagenic)
• Xylitol (gut disruptor)
• Acesulfame K (gut disruptor)
• Stevia (strong risk of sweetness tolerance problem)
• Glycine (beneficial in moderation, sweetness tolerance problem still there, though)

For more details than those, see: What’s The Healthiest Sweetener?

We’ve also talked about: The Fascinating Truth About Aspartame, Cancer, & Neurotoxicity

…which covers how the most popular beliefs about aspartame are myths, and in large part stemming from a single viral hoax chain letter in the 90s.

Take care!