Team:UCSC/Nutritionist
Phyllis Roxland, Nutritionist
As the first step in our exploration of the health consequences of zero-calorie sweeteners, and the public perception thereof, we contacted an individual who knows the realities surrounding this debate all too well. We spoke with Phyllis Roxland, a New York based nutritionist who had appeared in “Are Artificial Sweeteners Safe”, a piece penned by Denise Mann for WebMD.
In our interview we focused on the divergence between public perception of alternative sweeteners and what current scientific research suggests. Phyllis started off by postulating that the two most significant public fears centered on zero-calorie sweeteners were that they are carcinogenic, and that they prohibit individuals from losing weight rather than helping them. Phyllis believes the cancer controversy stemmed from a study in the 1970’s in which saccharin s was linked to cancer in rabbits, however further epidemiological and carcinogenicity studies have demonstrated that this link to cancer does not exist; a view reinforced by the NIH’s cancer.gov website. Sweet n’ Low, the saccharin based sweetener, was nonetheless instructed to provide a warning on the packets regarding cancer--which Phyllis believes may have “poisoned people’s minds” on this matter. Phyllis also brought up the important, symbolic distinction individuals often make between products they consider to be either ‘Natural’ or ‘Artificial’, and how those labels influence their decisions. She also mentioned an important question that requires further research: how does sucralose or other zero-calorie sweeteners affect our gut microbiome? We revisit this important topic later on in our storyline. Phyllis expressed how she feels zero-calorie sweeteners can play a significant role in helping those struggling with weight loss or diabetes. She stated that she recommends these sweeteners very often to her patients, as she feels it greatly improves their ability to stick with a reduced calorie diet. After decades of recommending these products, she feels convinced that when her patients try to eliminate all sweet-tasting foods from their diet, that they have a lower chance of successfully sticking to that diet in comparison to those who use zero-calorie foods to ease-off of sugar-high diets.
Before we go forward, we must make an important distinction—one which we did not fully recognize when we first began our journey. The terms ‘Alternative Sweetener’ and ‘Artificial Sweetener’ are not interchangeable; in fact, in many people’s minds they are as different as night and day. As the social movement towards healthier, all-natural lifestyles has grown, the two terms have morphed into their own distinct categories: Alternative Sweeteners refer to zero-calorie sweeteners from natural sources, such as Stevia, Monkfruit, and Erythritol; while Artificial Sweeteners refers to synthetically manufactured zero-calorie sweeteners, such Sucralose, Aspartame, and Saccharin.
As we had learned from countless online blogs and articles, public opinion on the two categories of Alternative and Artificial Sweeteners has diverged significantly. Due to its all-natural status, alternative sweeteners benefit from positive public opinion and favorable promotions on ‘healthy-living’ websites. Artificial sweeteners, on the other hand, are met with vicious opposition and constant derision. While public opinion may view these two categories separately, that is not to say that all consumers are aware of this distinction. Therefore, even though Erythritol benefits from all-natural, alternative sweetener status, it is still at risk from those who do not recognize the distinction.
