Talk:Sugar substitute

Allulose missing from the sweetness intensity tables

While allulose is noted under the "Types" section that it has about a 70% sweetness by weight compared with sucrose, the sweetener isn't listed at all in the sweetness intensity tables. It should likely be added to the plant-derived section. Beardiac (talk) 15:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Sucralose Damages DNA, Linked to Leaky Gut: Study

https://www.webmd.com/digestive-disorders/news/20230601/sucralose-genotoxic-linked-leaky-gut-study 75.101.37.162 (talk) 16:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Misinformation and hysteria from lab research. Not applicable - see WP:MEDRS for quality of source needed. In the future, adhere to WP:TALK - propose a specific change for the article supported by a reliable source. Zefr (talk) 17:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

No cancer links, but heart disease

There's a growing body of independent testing evidence that some of these sweeteners, erythritol to name one, can at least increase the risk of serious heart disease by increasing clotting. Two recent references below. The statement that there's no link between them and cancer should be followed by a "However" - different statement about impacts on heart disease. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41392-023-01504-6 https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/27/health/zero-calorie-sweetener-heart-attack-stroke-wellness/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/08/health/erythritol-blood-clotting-wellness/index.html 76.28.29.71 (talk) 03:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The studies to date indicating possible cardiovascular risks are only preliminary, such as the one reported on 8 Aug 24 (only 10 people in the study). The literature would have to show much more evidence from large-scale clinical trials (1000s of people) which currently doesn't exist, and would first be announced by national food safety organizations, such as the US FDA or European Food Safety Authority. The FDA stays on top of issues like this, and has no warnings about erythritol or any of the common sugar substitutes, which are constantly monitored for safety in food products. Zefr (talk) 04:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

What is "High Consumption"?

Under 'Research' > 'Mortality', it says "High consumption of artificially sweetened beverages was associated with...". I'm having trouble finding what constitutes high consumption in the citation. It says that "250 ml/day of both SSBs [sugar sweetened beverages] and ASBs [artificially sweetened beverages] was considered a measurement unit," but doesn't say explicitly that it or some other intake counts as high consumption. Could someone clarify this? Amercer1 (talk) 21:12, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

From this review: "Diet high in sugar-sweetened beverages, as defined by GBD (Global Burden of Disease study), is any intake (in grams per day) of beverages with ≥ 50 kcal per 226.8-gram serving, including carbonated beverages, sodas, energy drinks, and fruit drinks, but excluding 100% fruit and vegetable juices."

For reference, the 2021 GBD study. This remains an area of research, so a description could be added to the Research section, if you feel it is warranted. Zefr (talk) 23:04, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I asked for some ml/day intake of a sugar sweetened or artificially sweetened beverage that constitutes "high consumption". You gave me a measurement in kcal/gram that seems like it wouldn't be applicable to artificially sweetened beverages, as they often have 0 kcal per serving. This article uses "high consumption" as a measurement, ostensibly in ml/day or grams/day, that is applicable to both sugar sweetened and artificially sweetened beverages. If this just comes down to my misunderstanding, or will take more explaining to resolve, I'd be okay moving it to my talk page. Amercer1 (talk) 03:49, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I would say from Zefr's reply that "high consumption" would be the equivalent amount of artificially-sweetened beverages as sugar-sweetened beverages.

This report says "High total consumption was the group with artificial sweeteners total consumption >48616 g/year". That's one data point.

Another data point is this report, which says "The acceptable daily intake (ADI) for aspartame is 50 mg/kg body weight per day in the United States and 40 mg/kg in the European Union, while for saccharin, the ADI is set at 5 mg/kg body weight." Amounts higher than that, especially patterns of frequent, large-volume intake that exceed dietary norms, would be considered "high consumption".

The source this Wikipedia article cites for "high consumption" doesn't actually call out a specific boundary delineating high consumption, but looks at correlation, saying "we observed a linear relationship between SSB consumption and all-cause and cause-specific mortality. Each 250 ml/day serving of SSB was associated with a significantly higher risk of all-cause mortality." The number 250 ml/day is used as a measurement unit rather than a dividing line between normal and high consumption. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:55, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

mortality sub section

Sugar substitute#Mortality

"However, both studies also found similar or greater increases in all-cause mortality when consuming the same amount of sugar-sweetened beverages."

last statement summary provides reason to question relevancy of inconclusive results

if higher consumption of artificial sweeteners presents the same level of all-cause mortality increases that sugar does then what is the point of this paragraph other than to induce hysteria around sugar substitutes?

this subsection either needs to be reworked for nuance or removed entirely in my opinion Threeseventwo (talk) 09:10, 11 July 2026 (UTC)