In general, I try not to annoy people.  I try to be rational.  But there’s a nutrition issue that continues to circulate that is driving me crazy:  low calorie sweeteners.  It’s a polarizing nutrition topic, a love ‘em or hate ‘em kind of deal. So today, I wanted to try and set the record straight, and by “straight,” I mean from the standpoint of evidence-based science and government regulation, the basis we have to use for these types of issues.  I understand this may make some of you react strongly.  Feel free, but I ask that you do it in a way that is based on science.

Point #1

High-intensity or artificial sweeteners are approved for use by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).  I was surprised to read a statistic from the IFIC Foundation’s 2010 Food & Healthy Survey indicating that only 24% of Americans believe low-calorie sweeteners are reviewed by the federal government, meaning 76% believe they are not reviewed or approved by the FDA.  The job of the FDA is to protect the consumer, and the process to get new ingredients approved can be daunting as safety for consumer consumption must be shown.  There are currently six low-calorie sweeteners approved by the FDA or considered Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) for use in food and beverages:  aspartame, acesulfame-potassium (Ace-K), neotame, saccharin, sucralose and high-purity stevia sweeteners.  They’re approved.  They’ve been tested and have passed all the hurdles required.

Point #2

The BIGGEST PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE IN OUR COUNTRY TODAY IS OBESITY. Yes, I get that I’m yelling.  We all see the statistics on the number of people in our country that are overweight, we hear the numbers of kids who have obesity-related diseases.  But we ignore the numbers, assign them to someone else, pretending like it isn’t happening in our neighborhoods, at our offices, in our kids’ schools.  Low-calorie sweeteners do what their name says – they lower the calories in food.  So if a person who is seeking to lose or manage weight replaces a regular sugar product with an artificially sweetened one, they are cutting out calories.  This is a good thing in a country with our rates of obesity as long as it leads to overall reductions in calories and is combined with exercise.

Point #3

As a parent and a dietitian, I do look at things different with kids.  Despite the fact that I start my day with a Diet Mountain Dew, I don’t, in general, give my child artificially sweetened products.  But it’s not because I’m concerned about their safety or the fact that they are not “all natural.”  I want him to focus on nutrient-dense foods that contribute all the nutrients he needs and avoid empty-calorie foods except as a treat.  I want to teach him to eat when he’s hungry and stop when he’s full, building habits where he understands portion control and listening to his own body and it’s hunger cues.  But giving kids sugar-sweetened beverages in an effort to avoid artificial sweeteners isn’t the right answer, which is some of what I see happening out there.

The beauty of an expansive food supply is that we can all choose what to include in our eating habits.  I’m fine with that, fine with the idea that some people simply don’t want to use low-calorie sweeteners.  What I struggle with is those who spread false information about these ingredients.

Visit www.nuval.com, where foods with lower energy density (calories per gram) score higher in general in light of the obesity epidemic in our country.