Sacchrine content in Sweet N Low.
By coffeebreak
@coffeebreak (17798)
United States
April 25, 2013 8:38pm CST
I know there is contraversory about sacchrine and Sweet N Low sugar substitute. I was looking at Sweet n Low vs the store brand...sweet n low does not have the sacchrine content listed, however the store brand did. I have searched everywhere I can think of online and can't find sacchrine content of Sweet N Low...I can't even find an email to contact them! Anyone have any ideas/suggestions on how to find this info?
2 responses
@jambi462 (4576)
• United States
26 Apr 13
Anything with saccharine in it is bad for you and I wouldn't even bother with it. From what I read pretty much all artificial sweeteners are bad for you. I would recommend you to look up saccharine negative effects that it has on your health and you'll understand why you should avoid it.
I would recommend more natural non sugar sweeteners such as erythritol and stevia.
@coffeebreak (17798)
• United States
26 Apr 13
I've tried Stevia and SPlenda....they are gross..I'd rather not drink if I have to use those. I drink Ice Tea...and 1 packet of sweet n low sweetens 3 large glasses of it for me. I don't think it is harming me at all.. I have been using it like that for 35 years and have had numerous MRI's of various parts of my body and other health tests and am told I am in perfect health and so is everything in me.
@owlwings (43910)
• Cambridge, England
26 Apr 13
Sites which claim that saccharin causes bladder cancer are using outdated and discredited information. It IS linked with bladder cancer in rodents but the reason for this is well-known and does NOT apply to humans. Current research overwhelmingly proves that there is NO health risk associated with normal amounts of saccharin in foods. On the other hand, of course, it cannot be said that saccharin (or any sugar substitute) is "good for you".
Sugar is a food. It is the overuse of it in the modern diet which is bad for you. The real solution is NOT to sweeten things artificially but to use LESS sugar than we have become accustomed to!
@coffeebreak (17798)
• United States
26 Apr 13
Thanks Owl...I have tried sugar, but it is just to sweet and also doesn't dissolve well. I think I am fine with the sweet n low as I don't use that much...1-2 packets a day at the most. I have even cut down on that and flavor with lime/lemon. I was just wondering about the sacchrine. I am trying to cut my food budget and the Sweet n Low was $5 for a box and the store brand was $2.50 for same amount. The store brand mentioned the content of the sacchrine and that made me wonder so I looked at the S and L..and it wasn't there. Just one of those things that are odd and you need to find the answer!
@owlwings (43910)
• Cambridge, England
26 Apr 13
Sweet 'n' Low is a sugar substitute consisting of saccharin mixed with dextrose and cream of tartar. Since saccharin is hundreds of times 'sweeter' than sugar, it needs to be mixed with dextrose (glucose) or other soluble products to reduce the sweetness and to make it comparable to sugar.
In Canada, it is currently made from sodium cyclamate instead of saccharin because of tests which were conducted in the late '60s and early '70s on rats. These tests have since been found to have been flawed and there is currently no reliable evidence that saccharin causes bladder cancer in humans, though it may do so in rodents (who have a different metabolism). Canada is considering lifting their ban on saccharin.
Saccharin (the basic chemical is known as benzoic sulfilimine) is one of the oldest sugar substitutes. It was discovered in 1878 by Constantin Fahlberg working on coal-tar products at Johns Hopkins University. It became popular during World War 1 and has been widely used as a sweetener since them.
I cannot find any information about the exact proportions of saccharin and the other constituents of Sweet'n'Low except that (in the US and other countries apart from Canada) it is the only artificial sweetener used in the product.
If you are at all worried about the risks of saccharin (which you should not be, since all the current evidence shows that it is safe), I suggest that you use another artificial sweetener or use natural sweeteners but less of them.
Saccharin has a somewhat unpleasant, metallic after-taste and many people avoid it for that reason alone. It is also not particularly suitable for baking because it becomes unstable with heat.
For information about various sweeteners and sugar substitutes, I suggest that you use: http://www.caloriecontrol.org/sweeteners-and-lite
@coffeebreak (17798)
• United States
26 Apr 13
Yeah, I read all that too Owlwings...I remember when cyclamates were banned in soda pop back in the 70's.
The reason I started with SandL is cause of that metal taste in the cheaper/store brands. SandL doesn't have it. I never have baked with it, I use sugar for that! You just can't mimic that flavor! But like I said in my above comment...it was just odd that the store brand had the content listed, and SandL didn't. And I was only looking to try to save money...I have been using the store since yesterday and I dont' notice a difference in the taste....okay, if I REALLY try, I can taste a little, but not enough to change one way or the other. I guess the sacchrine is probably the same in both brands. It is just odd that the name brand doesn't mention the content per packet while the store brand does.
