Of the five basic tastes, if you include ‘umami’, sweet seems favorite. It might have to do with the fact that in our childhood it became associated with joyous events or compensation for wrongdoing. We did something well, if there was a party or if we fell out of the tree, we were granted one sugar-loaded food product. So that’s what we like.

The view that I developed over the years is that our bodies are equipped to deal with plant matter, the attractive term for ‘vegetables’. The vegetables would have been low on calories and proteins, like lettuce and carrots. I picture us sitting down in groups and eating grass, a bit like gorillas. This was not long ago so we still haven’t adopted our digestive systems to our current diet with much more carbohydrates and proteins. Weird if you think what animals are fed.

Sugar is not healthy, we’re told. So we are ushered away from this substance. The food industry offers us alternative sweeteners. A few years back, someone with a pharmaceutical background told me she would not use any of these sweeteners. That told me enough. The most ubiquitous of these products is aspartame, a substance that I consider a poison. Originally the company that developed aspartame could not get it approved, despite manipulating test data. Even in those days, the manufacturer’s test results were used for the official approval process. Lab animals suffered seizures, tumors and deaths. Case closed, you would think? Nope. At some point Donald Rumsfeld got involved. Him again. When Reagan took office this was one of the first things that was rammed through in a strict industrial-political process. Science was silenced. So now we find this substance in most ‘light’ or ‘diet’ product. What monkeys suffered we now see with people. Our doctors don’t link the symptoms to this ingredient. Good luck, consumer!
The approval of aspartame marked a new era. Consumer safety would no longer stand in the way of business interests. There are many examples, beyond food. The US body that is to guard food safety, the FDA, is populated by people who either worked for or will work for the industry. I notice similar influence in the EU and the WHO.
Another new sweetener is called ‘sucralose’, branded as ‘Splenda’. I learned about this molecule when I was still a chemical engineering student around 1990. Chemically, sucralose is a table sugar molecule with some of its molecule (hydroxy groups) replaced with chlorine atoms. Intuitively I considered this a monstrous molecule, looking like a pesticide. It’s reported that no rats died from it, although rats did die from refusing to eat it. The FDA’s file on sucralose counted 40.000 pages. It concludes that the molecule does not get processed in our bodies, is excreted and that 11-27% stays behind. Someone I know from the Gary Null show, Dr. Joseph Mercola, has written extensively about this substance and side effects. In our body sucralose is broken down into chlorinated organic compounds, normally considered suspicious.
Other sweeteners that I consider suspicious are cyclamates, acesulfame-K and saccharin. Saccharin was the main alternative before aspartame was introduced. It was also suspected of being promoter of cancer. Beside these, there are so-called polyalcohols that are derived from carbohydrates like xylitol, sorbitol, maltitol, and lactitol. Being that some of these exist in nature, I cannot see how they could harm us. They’re usually found in products flavored with mint, e.g. chewing gum or toothpaste.
If like me, you’re convinced that synthetic sweeteners cannot be trusted then what can you use for sweetness? There is still plenty to choose from although not all ‘diet’. First something about fructose. Fructose is all-natural yet not healthy for humans. Our body doesn’t use it like glucose, our principle fuel. Glucose is derived from long carbohydrates like starch. We eat potato, bread, rice and our body turns it into glucose, a 6-sided ring molecule. Fructose is different in that it is a 5-ring. Fructose is broken down in the liver and not processed as glucose. It might actually promote cancer. It is found in fruit, honey and makes half of the table sugar molecule (sucrose or sacharose). The industry also developed a process to turn cornstarch into ‘high fructose corn syrup’ (HFCS). This is now found in much of the common foods: mayonaise, soft drinks, sweets, processed foods, etc. Read the label. It might be called ‘glucose syrup’ and it can be made from other sources of starch (rice, wheat, etc.). Beside the fructose in HFCS, there were cases of pollution with mercury, a heavy metal. It’s not to say that HFCS is always contaminated, but who is checking? Unless there is a complaint, nobody is. “Let the market sort it” is what our governments decided. Good luck, consumer!
So if used in moderation, natural sugar and honey are safe. You can also consider sweeteners like natural syrups from agave or maple trees. For diabetics and those who watch their weight there is one more substance. It’s fairly new on the market, natural and recently approved. Stevia is derived from plant leafs and has been used a long time in South and Central America. It was barred from the European and US market and considered unsafe to eat. Giants Coca Cola and Cargill wanted to work with it and now the substance is suddenly ‘safe’. Well, actually it’s not Stevia that will enter the market but ‘Truvia’. I am not sure what it is and will stay away from it. The (natural) Stevia does not seem to be very stabile at all temperatures and in all foods. Beside Stevia, there are a few other natural sweeteners that may enter our diet. Since they cannot be patented it may take a while, as we saw with Stevia.
The overview of the available sweeteners shows a lot about how corporate interests influence what we find in the supermarket.