there are strong arguments to be made both in favor and against using artificial sweeteners in my opinion. one thing that is easy to agree upon is that there we could benefit from stronger scientific data on the long-term effects of artificial sweeteners on the body. the lack of strong data helps fuel the debate in my view. the argument in favor of artificial sweeteners goes something like this: excess sugar is unhealthy. when added to foods and beverages it encourages overeating and has negative health effects that help fuel diabetes heart disease and associated risk factors even in the absence of obesity. for example drinking one can per day of regular soda is associated with nearly a doubling of the risk of type 2 diabetes. since we are going to be eating sweet foods it makes sense to find healthier ways to sweeten food if possible. saccharin (sweet-n-low sugar twin) aspartame (nutrasweet equal) acesulfame k (sweet one sunett swiss sweet) neotame and sucralose (splenda) are currently approved by the fda for this use. extensive testing has demonstrated no evidence of toxicity or negative short-term health effects. years of experience with these products has not demonstrated any clear signs of trouble. moreover the availability of the “diet” version of sodas and other artificially sweetened foods helps people avoid the higher sugar alternatives and to maintain caloric reductions and weight loss. in patients with diabetes the availability of artificial sweeteners can help control blood sugar when used to reduce sugar intake. artificial sweeteners have been blamed by various individuals for many types of medical symptoms (such as headaches) but scientific studies attempting to find an association with any symptom typically fail to confirm any relationship with artificial sweeteners. even if a small minority of individuals are truly sensitive to certain artificial sweeteners that would not necessarily be a good reason to discourage others from using them. furthermore some would argue that even if artificial sweeteners have minor health risks that would not necessarily offset their potential benefits. the argument against artificial sweeteners goes something like this: as a general principle humans and other animal species are genetically designed to eat foods that occur in nature and artificial sweeteners do not fit this criterion. obviously not everything that is natural is healthy but one should assume that chemicals that do not occur naturally are not fit for human consumption. anyone who argues otherwise should be required to prove that a specific artificial chemical is safe for long-term consumption and the scientific methods available at this time are not sufficient to be confident that such artificial substances are truly safe. a small but growing body of scientific evidence supports the hypothesis that non-caloric sweeteners stimulate food intake obesity diabetes and related diseases. as summarized on the harvard school of public health website the concern is that sweetness in the absence of calories is unnatural and may stimulate hormonal changes that encourage overeating. non-conclusive studies suggest that people who drink diet soft drinks are at increased future risk of obesity and are more likely to have type 2 diabetes than people who avoid diet (and sugar-sweetened) beverages. for these reasons and others some specialty grocery chains such as whole foods do not carry any foods with artificial sweeteners or other artificial ingredients. their position may reflect a popular philosophy that that sugar derived from natural sources is the lesser evil compared to artificial sweeteners. natural sweeteners such as stevia and erythritol and other sugar alcohols are typically welcomed by those who are concerned about both sugar and artificial sweeteners. however they do not provide a perfect solution either due to taste limitations and they may raise the same concerns about sweetness in the absence of calories discussed above. finding an elusive middle ground: so what is the most prudent approach to sweeten foods and beverages? it is impossible to build a consensus around this topic. all approaches have limitations and concerns. sugar tastes the best but is clearly unhealthy when used to excess. stevia and sugar alcohols seem the least risky but have taste limitations. artificial sweeteners may represent a middle ground depending on the degree to which one believes they are safe versus risky and data are inconclusive and sparse.
what are the pros and cons of artificial sweeteners?