The Science of Sweet

A few years ago, as a college Sophomore, I was looking into any culinary arts classes that NYU offered. That was when, in the Steinhardt School, I found the Food Studies department. What follows is the term paper I wrote for my first class, 'Food and Society' on the subject of my choosing, artificial sweeteners (I felt the need to combine my love of food with my work as a chemist). It's the unannotated version (I dunno how to post the footnotes without making it more work than it's worth) and it could stand some revising, both in terms of current events/research and even my own point of view. Even if you'd disagree with me, I hope you'd find it interesting.

Ryan Harrington
Prof. Jennifer Berg
Food and Society
April 2007
The Science of Sweet
“After closing my eyes, I suddenly smelled a grilled hamburger. The aroma was uncanny, almost miraculous. It smelled like someone in the room was flipping burgers on a hot grill. But when I opened my eyes, there was just a narrow strip of white paper and a smiling flavorist.”
Eric Schlosser, Fast Food Nation, page 132.
For decades, science has played an integral role in the development of the food people eat. Genetic engineering has changed the corn (and its subsequent derivatives, chiefly corn syrup) grown around the world. Through analysis and replication of complex organic chemicals, flavorists have developed the fragrant “natural” fruit flavors that embody the taste of that bottle of Snapple. Anti mold and yeast reagents maintain the freshness preserved in the Twinkie. The harvesting of insects is used to color your child’s Gogurt. The engineering of the water gun knife revolutionized how to cut mass quantities of French fries. Every year, about 90 percent of the money spent on food in America goes to buy processed food. One of the most significant developments that science has contributed to what we, as a society, eat is in the form of sugar substitutes. It is through these sugar substitutes that we can examine not only how the quality of diet has degraded through advancements in science but also how, fundamentally, the quality of social character has degraded, coming to rely more on quick answers that ultimately distract from, but do not fix, the problems at hand. As a society, we are willing to lie to ourselves rather than deal with the consequences of the truth.
The oldest artificial sweetener is saccharin, accidentally developed in 1879. Chemists at Johns Hopkins University working with coal tar derivatives discovered it by accident. During dinner, the food they ate had a distinctly sweet taste followed by a bitter aftertaste; they realized this as the result of the residue left on their hands. An article detailing its production and applications was published a year later and quickly became a commercial success. Similarly, three of the other most prominent artificial sweeteners, cyclamate, aspartame, and sucralose were all also discovered by accident but have also proven to be commercially dominant forces.
Artificial sweeteners established themselves as a mainstay of popular diet by reaching a widespread audience during the sugar rationing of World War I. Artificial sweeteners also established themselves as a champion food additive of the diabetic. Not affecting their blood sugar levels, diabetics could increase the variety of their diets while still maintaining control. As calorie counting became more prominent and diet awareness more prevalent, artificial sweeteners became an even more integral part of societal eating habits. Today, diners and coffee shops around the country traditionally carry three colored packets of artificial sweeteners: Sweet ‘N Low (saccharine), Equal (aspartame), and Splenda (sucralose).
Reinventing the wheel has never proven such a lucrative opportunity as with the war of artificial sweeteners. Market analysts project annual growth of artificial sweeteners at 8.3%, reaching over $189 million by 2008. In a capitalistic market system, competition is actively encouraged to promote innovation. The key is marketing; make everything else look obsolete. Appearance versus reality. Sugar was once highly praised for both its sweetness and even for its dense food energy, able to best it former sweetener, honey, in several prevalent applications. It has been the backbone of the working class, forming one of several key “drug foods” to support long work days and strenuous work loads. Yet recently, through socially imposed standards and beliefs, sugar has been vilified. And between the counter-attacks of the sugar industry, and infighting with artificial sweeteners, the competition devolves very quickly into a popularity contest rather than advancing the human diet. The politics behind what goes into the food we eat is just as influential as the nutrition. When aspartame was in its earliest stages of approval, FDA Commissioner Arthur Hull Hayes approved aspartame as a food additive without the consensus of the Public Board of Inquiry designated to assess the risk of Aspartame. Hayes was closely associated with the artificial sweetener industry having several close friends, most notably Donald Rumsfeld, then the CEO of G.D. Searle. Still, all this politicking would be for naught if, ultimately, there was no popular appeal for artificial sweeteners.
The real driving force behind the mass appeal of artificial sweeteners has been the ever growing concern of weight gain. Body image has become an increasingly dominant influence in culture. We are taught that you have to look a certain way to be successful. But in this day and age, we look for convenience; getting desired results without the sacrifice. Because artificial sweeteners do not contain any food energy, it is a popular belief that replacing normal high energy foods with those using artificial sweeteners will assist in weight loss. No actual study has supported this theory. Rather, recent studies have shown that consuming artificial sweetener can actively be linked to weight gain. It cannot be determined, yet, that artificial sweeteners promoted weight gain or simply did not hinder it. There is a theory that artificial sweeteners stimulate appetite and the body’s craving for calories because of the very fact that they do not have any. Research is still ongoing. While part of the problem may be biological, there is a clear psychological component. It is important to remember that changing food energy intake from one source does not necessarily impact overall intake. Sometimes, it is this very illusion that facilitates the behavior one tries to avoid. In an “obesity epidemic,” it is easy to take control of one aspect and convince one’s self that the easy solution is one that will fix the problems. When confronted with prepackaged convenience foods at every corner, it is easy to justify one’s actions by believing the hyped image.
In no other industry has artificial sweeteners made such an impact as in the soft drink industry. Though “soft drinks” have been around for since the 17th century and carbonated beverages since the late 18th, it was not until the 1950s that “no-cal” or “diet” sodas and colas became available. Clearly through marketing and naming, the appearance of a more health conscious beverage is made without necessarily proving as any means to actually diet. Like so many trends, people want simple solutions to problems without sacrificing the luxury of their bad habits. Relaying vague implications and relying on the consumer to make the logical leap has always been a process that the food industries have utilized. SnackWell's, a line of low-fat snacks, were so popular in the early 1990s that ravenous consumers emptied entire stores of the cookies. In 1995, the brand's revenues hit $500 million, making it one of the most successful product launches in the history of the food industry. Consumers assumed “low fat” or “non fat” meant that they were healthy. In reality, because of the high amounts of sugar to make these treats, they are high in calories and still unhealthy. Similarly, and even more successfully, diet colas have been marketed as the health conscious alternative to the ever more prevalent soft drink market.
Field research into grocery, convenience, drug, and department stores as well as vending machines and restaurants reveal that in New York City, diet cola is one of the most available, also implying most demanded, sodas, trailing only behind regular cola. It is also important to note that for nigh every other soft drink available in grocery stores, its diet counterpart was also available, allocated the same space and quantity. In stores and restaurants with a limited selection of soft drinks available, cola and diet cola were the only two consistently available in every location. It is no hyperbole to claim that diet soda accounts for nearly 40% of the supply of soft drinks. And it is hard not to make the logical leap from a consistently supplied product as also representing a consistently purchased one. Americans love the taste of soda, hate the idea of calories, and love the images that diet sodas seem to be push.
Despite the success of artificial sweeteners, and in some part because of it, controversy over their safety has erupted in a widespread, heated debate. There is debate on every major sweetener, most often linked to their carcinogenic properties. Studies have indicated that continuous consumption of certain artificial sweeteners have increased the risk of cancerous growths in the laboratory rats. This does not necessarily translate to humans however; the mechanism that causes saccharin to induce bladder cancer in laboratory rats is not found in humans. Still, the threat has been enough for some countries to continue to ban saccharin. Aspartame is still debated by some to be linked to the rise in cases of brain tumors, though there is a distinct lack of conclusive evidence. And sucralose has garnered scrutiny for its classification as an organochlorine, many of which are highly toxic, including the pesticide DDT.
Several publications have come out, exploring and challenging the safety claims of artificial sweeteners, often urging their audiences to reconsider the consumption of said products. Like how a lot of the news in this country is presented, many of these books are pushing a strong sensationalist feel, relying on scare tactics and fear. Sweet Deception: Why Splenda, NutraSweet, and the FDA May be Hazardous to Your Health by Joseph Mercola, Excitotoxins: The Taste that Kills by Russell Blaylock, and Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World by Cori Brackett. All of these titles are designed to draw an audience based on shock and fear. By putting its audience in a state of panic, they are guaranteeing a captive audience. Again, it is a delicate balance between appearances and reality.
People themselves seem quite divided on opinion of diet sodas and artificial sweeteners. Field research into the opinions of people shed some light into psychological aspects of these drinks. Of those that drink diet sodas, the overwhelming reason why was because of lower calories. This was often supplemented by statements that the taste was not that much different. When asked to elaborate, typical responses clarified the implied meaning that while of inferior taste, the lack of calories more than made up for its corn syrup sweetened counterpart. Meanwhile, those that drink regularly sweetened soda over diet soda typically responded that quality of taste was their main concern. Often found were reports of “unnatural” or “fake” taste which were undesirable. Many admitted that their consumption of soda was not that healthy and their diet may improve with a switch to diet sodas but were unwilling to sacrifice the taste. Nearly every participant reported hearing concerns over the safety of artificial sweeteners, either in general but especially specifically concerned with Equal (Aspartame). Several sought out beverages only sweetened with Splenda (Sucralose), claiming it, unlike the others, has been proven harmless. Clearly, the subjects seemed influenced as much by popular culture as by science. Outside studies have shown that upwards of two thirds of Americans are aware of the possible risk associated with artificial sweeteners but at the same time does not seem to hinder the sales of said products.
There is a lot to be said about artificial sweeteners. More importantly there is a lot more left unknown. Few things have been able to impact a culture so rapidly while their long term effects still remain to be decisively determined. It is a clear example of a society relying on science and technology to provide an easy solution to rectify or improve a bad situation. People expect an expedient solution, in the here and now. Consequences are left to be dealt with in the never approaching future. From the scientist that stumbled onto latest synthetic compound to “improve” the eating experience, the lobbyist that pushes it ahead through the red tape to reach market faster, the consumers who willingly lie to themselves that they are making positive choices, to the expert scaring a population into thinking they’ve just given themselves cancer. Whether you are just trying to allay the guilt of drinking that guilty pleasure or trying to increase net profits, there are a variety of ways in which artificial sweeteners have shaped society since its inception. And it is easy to see just how much of this food additive has nothing to do with food at all.
Some would have you believe that these sweeteners are as benign as table salt. Some claim that they are a tumor inducing blight on society. And there are those that are hesitant to make judgments and err on the side of caution. Look what happened to our environment after Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) became a dominant industrial component. Look at the aftermath of asbestos as the touted fireproof insulation. Science has done so much, so fast. And now the backlash is emerging; some people are becoming weary of the advances that scientists have brought. All natural. Organically grown. Hormone free. It is a return to basics, before things got complicated. It is a way to rationalize the safety of our food in an ever increasing fear inducing society. But what do these claims mean versus what they imply? So much of the food industry is designed to appease the guilty conscious of the consumer while not actually address the problem at hand. It is still a constant question of appearance versus reality. The dichotomy of “natural” and “processed” foods is slowly blurring more and more into a gradient. Like saccharine itself, we may be heading towards the sweet taste of the future only to be left with a bitter aftertaste.