ASPARTAME SAFETY-A CONTROVERSY REVISITED

Whether one likes it or not artificial sweeteners are here to stay as an ingredient in many consumer food products because there are millions of people who have restrictions regarding intake of natural sugars either for medical reasons or for weight control. The question of selection of a particular non calorie sweetener is difficult because each one available to day has one or the other drawback as none is considered absolutely satisfactory. Consumer is further confounded by claims and counter claims by different brands regarding the virtue of their products. Amongst the sweeteners which have been established as acceptable with adequate safety credentials, Aspartame was predominantly in use till the year 2004 and more recently Sucralose and Stevia glycosides are in the lime light because of their perceived superiority and cost considerations.

Aspartame, discovered by G D Searle and Company in 1965 had a turbulent history before becoming universally accepted as a sugar substitute till recently. It is the methyl ester of aspartic acid/phenyl alanine dipeptide and got its first approval in 1975 and to day it is considered safe in more than 90 countries. It is 200 times sweeter than sucrose and both Sucralose and Stevia score over it in terms of intensity of sweetness. Under continuous attack from critics on safety issues, it was subjected to hundreds of safety studies and most recently it was declared safe again in 2007. Besides the stability of Aspartame under high temperature or under acidic and alkaline media is not considered adequate for application in many foods though there are more than 6000 consumer food products in the market containing this sweetener. After the expiry of its patent protection in 1994, there are more producers of Aspartame, most prominent being the Ajinomoto Company which enjoys a market share of 40% out of a total world production of 15000 tons.

The controversy regarding the safety refuses to die down and no matter how much scientific evidence is generated there will always be skeptics who do not want to believe the claims, probably out of too much concerns for their own health. How ever keeping the controversy alive can be harmful to the product as is evidenced by some sustained legal and other obstructions against Aspartame. This has of course added to general concerns over artificial sweeteners and fed growing interest in natural ingredients, including Stevia, which comes from a plant native to South America. Stevia has been used in food and drink products sold in markets in Asia and South America for decades but industry recognition of the ingredient has grown since the FDA cleared its use in the US in 2008. The food and drinks sector is awaiting full EU clearance, although France has given its approval under a rule that allows a member state to give a temporary, two-year green light to an ingredient.

Stevia has to go a long way to catch up or replace Aspartame though giants like Cargill have joined the Stevia club to corner significant share of global sweetener sales. It is estimated that out of a world business of $ 350 million in artificial sweeteners, Aspartame has a share of 27% while Stevia sales were just $79m, or 6% of the market. If Stevia and Sucralose become more attractive choices, Aspartame market is bound to slide go down progressively, especially because of the on-going controversies vis-à-vis its safety. Given the choice, the safety of the sweeteners being not an issue, users may increasingly prefer Stevia and Sucralose as their sweetener intensity is much higher than Aspartame while the unit cost is almost same. With large mega players like Cargill entering Stevia business the sugar substitute business is bound to heat up in the coming years and if competition can bring down the prices, consumer will be the happiest lot! Natural sugar, be it from Sugarcane or Sugar beets may see its role increasingly being marginalized because of the plethora of health disorders attributed to its consumption.

V.H.POTTY

http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

'SWEET' POLITICS! BITTER AFTERMATH!

In the normal diet cane sugar and products containing sugar upwards of 10% provide pleasant taste and calories though corn based high fructose syrup(HFCS) has lately been finding increasing use in place of cane sugar. Since USA is not a major sugar cane grower, HFCS was developed there to encourage corn farmers and reduce dependence on imported sugar. Weight watchers and sugar compromised consumers strive hard to reduce sugar consumption as much as possible for obvious reasons. Besides dentists consider sugar as the biggest culprit for majority of tooth related problems and invariably advise people to shun sugar and if unavoidable to brush the teeth immediately to prevent proliferation of bacteria in the mouth. With the economy of many countries like Brazil, India, Mauritius and others depending heavily on sugar cane, it is difficult to stop world trade in sugar. The massive use of sugar cane in Brazil for ethanol production that can be an acceptable fuel singly or in blends with gasoline is a development fraught with implications for future and there is a possibility the world may see a slow fading of cane sugar into eventual oblivion.

The business opportunities offered by declining sugar consumption for health reasons have been grabbed with open arms by the chemical industry to develop synthetic sweteners like Saccharin, Aspartame, Acesulfame Potassium, Neotame, Cyclamate, Sucralose etc which to day command significant patronage by sugar-wary consumers. An area of concern for the consumers of synthetic sweeteners is their safety for long term consumption. There is no uniform approach in the world as to how these food adjuncts have to be cleared to ensure consumer safety in absolute terms. Some are banned in some countries while others allow all the synthetic sweeteners except Cyclamate with intake restrictions. Accepted Daily Intake (ADI) levels for Aspartame (50mg/kg body weight), saccharin (5mg/kg), Acesulfame (15mg/kg) and Sucralose (5mg/kg) have been established. Since these are 200-600 times sweeter than cane sugar, their consumption can be considered reasonably safe.

Leaves of Stevia plant contain several glycosides, called steviosides sweet to taste and the species Stevia Rebaudiana yield almost 10% of these steviosides grown extensively in Paraguay, Japan and Brazil. World production of Stevia sugar is estimated at 1300 tons per year. These glycosides are about 500 times sweeter than cane sugar and are considered 100% safe because of the fact that stevia leaves were being consumed for centuries by the native population of Paraguay with no recorded adverse effect. ADI for Stevia sugar is determined to be 12 mg/kg body weight by the JEFCA of FAO?WHO. The process of making colorless and odorless product from the leaves is well known and pure steviosides are costly to make due to complexity of the technology. In India Touch Natural Pvt Ltd based in Mao in Manipur has ventured into Stevia sugar involving 300 farmers and setting up a plant in Kainu. Sun Fruits Ltd, Pune is reported to be taking up cultivation of the variety (SRB)128 for producing stevia sugar in India. 2-3 tons of dry leaves can be harvested with about 15-20% stevioside content from this variety which is expected to be grown in West Bengal and North East Region.

If stevia is a safe bet as a sugar substitute why is its consumption confined to a few countries, inspite of the fact that its cultivation is relatively simple? Why only Japan consumes more than 50% of the stevia sugar produced in the world? The answer is simple, the political intrigues amongst corporate bodies stradling the western world looking for greater and greater returns on their investments Otherwise how any sane person can justfy marketing of stevia sugar for table top use but not permitted in processed food products? Aspartame the most widely used artificial sweetener is associated with G D Searle and Monsanto Chemicals and they are bent on keeping their turf safe from competition. With the patent on Aspartame expiring and the prices tumbling down, Sucralose from Zydus Cadila, another corporate giant, is taking over the market as the new star and the combined efforts of this lobby is keeping Stevia out under one pretext or the other. Also in the news is the keen interest by Coca Cola and Cargil, the super giants, in Stevia sugar and their patents have not yet been cleared. They are already marketing table top sweeteners based on Stevia under the brands Rebiana and Truvia respectively. It is unlikely that Stevia will be cleared before the pending patents from the corporate giants are sealed. The recent announcement by Coca Cola to market beverages sweetened by Stevia sugar though not yet cleared by FDA, is a pointer that it will be approved as a safe industrial sweetener soon and in absence of any major manufacturers, industry will have to depend heavily on these multinational companies for years to come for supply of stevia sugar.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/