J Neurogastroenterol Motil 2016; 22(2): 168-180  https://doi.org/10.5056/jnm15206
Artificial Sweeteners: A Systematic Review and Primer for Gastroenterologists
Marisa Spencer1, Amit Gupta2, Lauren Van Dam1, Carol Shannon3, Stacy Menees1, and William D Chey1,*
1Department of Gastroenterology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA, 2Department of Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA, 3Taubman Health Sciences Library, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
Correspondence to: William D Chey, MD, 1500 East Medical Center Drive, 3912 Taubman Center, PC 5362, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-5362, USA Tel: +1-734-936-4775, Fax: +1-734-936-7392, E-mail: wchey@med.umich.edu
Received: December 30, 2015; Accepted: January 27, 2016; Published online: April 30, 2016.
© The Korean Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility. All rights reserved.

cc This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Abstract

Artificial sweeteners (AS) are ubiquitous in food and beverage products, yet little is known about their effects on the gastrointestinal (GI) tract, and whether they play a role in the development of GI symptoms, especially in patients with irritable bowel syndrome. Utilizing the PubMed and Embase databases, we conducted a search for articles on individual AS and each of these terms: fermentation, absorption, and GI tract. Standard protocols for a systematic review were followed. At the end of our search, we found a total of 617 eligible papers, 26 of which were included. Overall, there is limited medical literature available on this topic. The 2 main areas on which there is data to suggest that AS affect the GI tract include motility and the gut microbiome, though human data is lacking, and most of the currently available data is derived from in vivo studies. The effect on motility is mainly indirect via increased incretin secretion, though the clinical relevance of this finding is unknown as the downstream effect on motility was not studied. The specific effects of AS on the microbiome have been conflicting and the available studies have been heterogeneous in terms of the population studied and both the AS and doses evaluated. Further research is needed to assess whether AS could be a potential cause of GI symptoms. This is especially pertinent in patients with irritable bowel syndrome, a population in whom dietary interventions are routinely utilized as a management strategy.

Keywords: Gastrointestinal tract, Irritable bowel syndrome, Microbiota, Motility, Sweetening agents
Introduction

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), a syndrome that is characterized by recurring episodes of abdominal pain, bloating, and altered bowel habits, is a common problem that is seen in approximately 10–20% of the general population.1,2 Roughly two thirds of patients with IBS associate the onset or worsening of their symptoms with food intake.36 To date, the greatest attention has focused on diets excluding FODMAPs (fermentable oligo-di-monosaccharides and polyols) or gluten in treatment of IBS symptoms.7,8 Many commercially available foods and beverages contain artificial sweeteners (AS), sometimes unbeknownst to the consumer. The prevalence of these nonnutritive sweeteners in products and their resultant ingestion by consumers has been increasing over time.9,10 The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved 5 AS to date: acesulfame, aspartame, neotame, saccharin, and sucralose. Other non-nutritive sweeteners, such as stevia, exist but these are not technically considered to fall under the term “artificial sweeteners.” AS are often used for assistance with weight loss by decreasing the amount of calories consumed from sugar.9 Some anecdotal evidence exists of AS triggering gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms in humans, but little has been published in the medical literature on this topic. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the available literature on the effects of AS on the GI tract in order to determine whether they could be playing a role in GI symptoms, especially those experienced by IBS patients.

Methodology

We first constructed a search strategy for PubMed which combined MeSH terms and free text terms to construct a broad discovery net for articles on individual AS and each of these terms: fermentation, absorption, and GI tract. The searches were then limited to full articles in the English language, and no other filters were applied. The search strategies were adapted to suit the Embase databases as well, and duplicate papers found in both databases were eliminated. All searches were completed by June 8, 2015. We retrieved potentially relevant articles and reviewed their reference lists to identify any studies missed by our search strategy. At the end of our search, we found a total of 617 eligible papers which were reviewed separately by 2 reviewers (MS and AG) and any discrepancies were resolved by a third party (SM); 591 papers were excluded because of irrelevance to the specific questions being asked, not written in English, case reports, letters to the editor, or reviews reporting data of the same original studies. In the end we selected 26 original papers to be included in our systematic review.

Results

Given the limited amount of data on the AS acesulfame and neotame, these AS were excluded from our review. Only data on aspartame (4 papers), saccharin (11 papers), and sucralose (14 papers) were included. Background data on the chemical structure (Figure), metabolism, and prevalence in commercially available products for each of the individual AS are presented first, followed by a summary of the evidence on their effects on motility, the microbiome, secretion, absorption/permeability, and GI symptoms. A sample of products that contain aspartame, sucralose, and saccharin are presented in Tables 13. Common food and beverage products and the AS they contain are presented in Table 4.

Structure, Metabolism, and Prevalence

Aspartame is a dipeptide methyl ester that is composed of the amino acids aspartic acid and phenylalanine (L-aspartyl-L-phenylalanine methyl ester). It is approximately 200 times sweeter than sucrose.11 Aspartame is hydrolyzed in the gut to its constituent amino acids, aspartate, and phenylalanine, as well as methanol which are all absorbed into the portal circulation.12,13 Methanol is then converted to formaldehyde and subsequently oxidized into formic acid.12 The amount of methanol from aspartame in a soft drink is less than that found naturally in many other foods/beverages.14,15 An ingredient search on foodfacts.com yields 2254 products that contain aspartame. The FDA’s acceptable daily intake (ADI) of aspartame is 50 mg/kg/day.

Sucralose (C12H19Cl3O8) is a synthesized disaccharide that is formed when 3 hydroxyl groups from sucrose are replaced with chlorine atoms.16 The resulting compound is around 600 times as sweet as sucrose.17 Splenda is a combination of sucralose and maltodextran (1% and 99% by dry-weight respectively).16 Given how potent sucralose is as a sweetener, these fillers are utilized to add volume. Radiolabeled sucralose studies have confirmed that approximately 85% of sucralose is eliminated unchanged in the feces.18,19 It should be noted that the absolute amount of sucralose eliminated in the feces is small given how potent it is as a sweetener. The remaining approximately 15% of oral intake is absorbed following consumption. Most is excreted unchanged in the urine, but minor metabolites, likely the result of glucoronidation and not products of metabolism, have also been shown to be present in the urine.19 These metabolites represent only about 2–3% of the total oral intake.19 Both sucralose (unchanged) and the suspected glucuronide conjugates are excreted in urine with no bio accumulation. An ingredient search on foodfacts.com yields 5166 products that contain sucralose. Its higher prevalence compared with other AS is due to its stability in heat, its stability over a range of pH conditions, and its solubility in ethanol, methanol, and water.17 The FDA’s ADI of sucralose is 5 mg/kg/day.

Saccharin is a strong organic acid with the chemical formula C7H5NO3S. It is almost completely ionized at physiological pH. Saccharin is 200–700 times sweeter than sucrose. It has nearly complete absorption from the gut (about 3% is recovered in the feces in humans after normal and high doses)20 and is rapidly eliminated unchanged in the urine. Metabolism of this molecule has not been detected. It is often used with other sweeteners, as it stores well, but is unstable when heated. Therefore, its prevalence in commercial products is much less compared with other AS. An ingredient search on foodfacts.com yields 110 products that contain saccharin. The FDA’s ADI of saccharin is 5 mg/kg/day.

Effects on Gastrointestinal Motility

Evidence that AS may cause alterations in GI motility is mostly indirect, via their effects on the secretion of incretin hormones and serotonin. Certain AS, sucralose being the most studied, have been shown to cause increases in the incretin hormones glucagon-like-peptide-1 (GLP-1), gastric inhibitory polypeptide (GIP), Peptide YY (PYY), and cholecystokinin (CCK). GLP-1 decreases motility in the antro-duodeno-jejunal region and inhibits the migrating motility complex in healthy subjects and IBS patients.21 CCK delays gastric emptying,22,23 and GIP may also slow gastric emptying.24,25 PYY has been shown to cause delayed intestinal transit.26,27 Additionally, sucralose has been shown to increase serotonin, which initiates peristaltic and secretory activity.28

Cellular/animal studies

Five studies done in cell lines showed that sucralose increased GLP1, GIP, PYY, CCK, and serotonin release.2933 Another study, however, showed no difference in CCK and GLP-1 levels in duodenal tissue between the sucralose and control groups. However, there was a significant increase in both hormone levels above controls when sucralose was combined with pea protein, suggesting that there may be a synergistic relationship between a macronutrient and sucralose to enhance incretin release.34 Contrary to studies done at the cellular level, sucralose, saccharin, and acesulfame did not increase GLP-1 or GIP in rats35 despite the fact that the concentrations of the sweeteners used in the study were 1000 fold in excess of the amount used in diet soda.

Human studies

A number of human studies have been performed to assess the effect of AS on incretin secretion and thus GI motility indirectly. In 2009 Ma et al36 performed a controlled cross over trial on 7 healthy subjects (mean age 24 years old, mean body mass index [BMI] 21.6) who were given intragastric infusions of the following radio-labelled substances: 50 g sucrose in water, 80 mg sucralose in 500 mL normal saline (NS), 800 mg sucralose in 500 mL NS, and 500 mL NS. They found that sucralose did not stimulate GLP-1 or GIP release, and did not slow gastric emptying as assessed by carbon dioxide breath samples.

In 2011 Ford and colleagues performed a randomized controlled single-blind cross over study of 8 healthy humans (7 female, aged 22–27 years old, BMI 18.8–23.9).37 The study participants swallowed either 50 mL of water, sucralose (0.083% sucralose), or maltodextran plus sucralose (Splenda, 0.083% sucralose), followed by a modified sham feeding (swish and spit) of same solution. Blood samples were taken before and up to 2 hours after. They concluded that sucralose ingestion did not increase plasma GLP-1 or PYY levels. Additionally, sham feeding did not elicit a cephalic phase response for GLP-1.

Another randomized double-blinded placebo controlled cross over study looking at aspartame, sucralose, and acesulfame was performed in 2011 in 12 healthy, nonsmoking volunteers (6 female, mean age 23.3 [19–29] with a mean BMI 23 [20.5–24.7]).38 Subjects received intragastric infusions of 6 substances: aspartame, acesulfame, sucralose, fructose, glucose, and water. These were separated by at least 3–5 days. They found that equisweet loads of AS did not affect secretion of GLP-1 PYY, or ghrelin.

Brown et al39 performed a randomized controlled cross over trial looking at sucralose and acesulfame. In this study, 22 healthy volunteers (mean age 18.5 [12–25], 45% males mean BMI [25.6]) drank 240 mL of Diet Rite cola or unflavored carbonated water 10 minutes prior to a 75 g oral glucose load. GLP-1 was measured for 180 minutes after the glucose load. They found that GLP-1 levels were significantly higher with diet soda than carbonated water, suggesting that sucralose given with glucose can enhance GLP-1 release, though sucralose in the absence of carbohydrate did not seem to stimulate GLP-1 secretion in prior human studies. Effects on gastric emptying were not assessed as part of this study.

Effects on the Microbiome

There is a significant amount of evidence from animal studies that AS affect the gut microbiome but data on how specifically the sweeteners affect the microbiome are conflicting, and to our knowledge only one study has reported human data.

Animal studies

Anderson and colleagues first performed a controlled trial of male rats who were fed a 7.5% sodium saccharin (NaS) diet or a control diet with no saccharin for 10 days in 1980.40 NaS resulted in an increase in the total number of aerobic microbes but no change in the number of total anaerobes, resulting in a lower anaerobes/aerobes ratio in the saccharin group. Visual inspection of plates showed that there was deletion of a specific anaerobic microbe in the NaS group, but this organism was not identified. Fifty or 100 mg NaS also inhibited the urease activity of proteus vulgaris likely due to inhibition of microbial growth (reduced numbers of organisms were present in culture tubes after 72 hours).

This same group then performed a follow up study that was published in 1985.41 Rats were fed a control diet, or a diet that contained NaS at 5% or 7.5%. NaS ingestion caused an increase in the mass of cecal contents and a dose-dependent increase in the fecal content of soluble polysaccharide, which resulted in more carbohydrate available to the gut microflora. NaS also caused inhibition of the hydrolysis of starch by amylase, an increase in the cecal concentration of lactate, and a decreased cecal concentration of volatile fatty acids compared with controls. NaS groups also showed decreased propioate, butyrate, and valerate levels compared with controls, and it was hypothesized that these results were due to effects on the microbiome.

Also in 1985, Mallett et al42 fed male rats a diet supplemented with 50 g NaS for 4 or 20 weeks, or a control diet with no saccharin.42 The animals were subsequently sacrificed and their cecal contents were examined and enzyme assays were performed. The concentration and number of bacteria were determined by microscopic count. NaS over 4 weeks had no effect on the total bacterial counts, but after 20 weeks the total bacterial count had significantly increased, although the concetration of bacteria was similar to controls. The mean ammonia concentration in cecal contents increased by 30–50% in the saccharin group and the activity of a number of bacterial enzymes significantly decreased. Direct incubation of saccharin with cecal contents decreased nitrate reductase, B glucuronidase, and endogenous ammonia production. In this study they did not attempt to identify specific bacterial species. They hypothesized that the decreased enzyme activity may be how saccharin exhibits its effects on the microbiome.

A study done by Naim et al43 in 1985 measured bacterial counts of small intestinal contents of male rats after being incubated in vitro with 2.5% NaS for up to 20 hours. They showed decreased counts of Lactobacillus and Escherichia coli compared with controls, and in particular NaS inhibited the growth of 3 Lactobacillus strains and 3 E. coli strains after their isolation from intestinal contents and incubation in laboratory medium. This study suggested the inhibitory effect of NaS on bacterial growth in pooled small intestinal contents in vitro and in pure culture. However, it should be emphasized that this study was done with small intestinal and not colonic samples, which may account for the different results seen in other studies.

Lawrie et al44 looked at the effect of NaS on the metabolism of amino acids by bacteria in rats in a study published in 1985. Male rats were given 7.5% NaS in their diet or a control diet for 40 days. Rats in the study group had a 3–4 fold increase in the daily urinary excretion of indican and p-cresol (which are microbial metabolites of tryptophan). Phenol (another metabolite of tryptophan) was almost completely suppressed in the study group. The authors felt that saccharin changes the metabolism of amino acids by gut flora, leading to the formation of products with possible carincogenic properties. They also hypothesized that saccharin inhibits intestinal protein digestion leading to increased metabolism by bacteria.

In a study done by Pfeffer et al,45 rats were sacrificed and their anaerobically recovered cecal contents were incubated with glucose. The addition of NaS and acesulfame K with the glucose inhibited anaerobic acid production by cecal bacteria. The authors felt the nutritive relevance of this was probably small becauase such high concentrations of NaS and acesulfame K were needed to inhibit fermentation.

A randomized controlled trial was performed by Abou-Donia et al46 in 2008, in which male rats were randomly assigned to 1 of 5 groups: control, or sucralose plus maltodextran in the following doses (mg/kg/day): 1.1, 3.3, 5.5, or 11. Fecal pH and bacterial analysis were conducted weekly, and after 12 weeks half of the rats from each group were sacrificed. Small intestinal tissue was used to evaluate the effects of sucralose and maltodextran on levels of P-glycoprotein (P-gp) and cytochrome P-450 (CYP450). The remainder of the animals underwent a 12 week recovery period after which further assessment of pH/bacteria/P-gp, CYP450 was performed. During the duration of the study, no diarrhea in any of the rats was observed. In terms of the effect on the microbiome, they found that the total number of anaerobes decreased significantly in all sucralose plus maltodextran groups. At the lowest dose, total anaerobes were reduced by approximately 50% compared with controls. Bifidobacterium, Lactobacillus, and Bacteroides were significantly reduced at the lowest dose as well. Aerobic bacteria decreased significantly in all sucralose plus maltodextran groups except at the lowest dose (decreased by 51–68% of controls). The enterobacteria count was not different from the control population in any group. In the recovery period, the total anaerobes remained significantly lower in all groups, as did bifidobacteria (other specific bacteria were not significantly different from the controls). The mean fecal pH significantly increased in all sucralose plus maltodextran groups at end of 12 weeks and stayed significantly elevated in all groups except the lowest sucralose plus maltodextran group after 12 weeks of recovery. Sucralose plus maltodextran enhanced the intestinal expression of P-gp up to 2.4-fold, and increased CYP3A4 and CYP2D1 intestinal expression (though these effects were not seen in the group that received the lowest dose of sucralose plus maltodextran). In summary, sucralose plus maltodextran significantly decreased beneficial intestinal bacteria (ie, Bifidobacterium, Lactobacillus, and Bacteriodes), but had no effect on enterobacteria. Sucralose plus maltodextran also resulted in elevated fecal pH and enhanced intestinal expression of P-gp and CYP450 enzymes. Several parameters continued to differ after 12 weeks of recovery, including a decrease in the total number of anaerobes and enhanced P-gp and CYP expression.

Suez et al47 assessed the effect of AS in a multi-faceted study. The sweeteners NaS, sucralose, or aspartame were added to drinking water of mice (control mice drank only water or water supplemented with either glucose or sucrose). Impaired glucose tolerance was significantly increased in mice by consumption of the sweeteners NaS, sucralose, and aspartame after 11 weeks. Given that NaS produced the most profound effect, it was decided to study this AS alone going forward. Changes in glucose tolerance were suppressed with antibiotic treatment, suggesting a direct role of the microbiome. Fecal microbiota composition was then determined by sequencing the 16S ribosomal ribonucleic acid (rRNA) gene. Mice drinking NaS had a distinct microbial composition that clustered separately from their pre-saccharin microbiome and all controls at week 11. Bacteria that increased in abundance in NaS mice included bacteroides and some clostridiales (with other clostridiales under-represented). Lactobacillus was under-represented. Shotgun metanomic gene sequencing was performed in order to study the functional consequences of NaS consumption, and similar to the 16S rRNA analysis, NaS treatment induced the largest changes in microbial relative species abundance. Pathways overrepresented in NaS mice included an increase in glycan degradation pathways in which glycans are fermented to form a number of compounds including short chain fatty acids.

They then transferred intestinal microbiota from mice fed NaS or control mice into germ-free mice, and those given microbiota from NaS group became more glucose intolerant than controls. Similar effects were seen in germ free mice that received microbiota that had been grown in vitro in the presence of NaS. They concluded that NaS directly alters the microbiome composition and metabolism. An in vitro stool culture with saccharin increased Bacteriodes and reduced Firmicutes. Additionally, germ-free recipients of cultured configuration had increased Bacteriodes and under-represetation of several Clostridiales. The fecal microbiota composition of germ-free mice who received stool from saccharin mice showed different microbial composition as well.

Human studies

In the aforementioned study, Suez et al47 went on to assess the effect of AS on the microbiome in humans. They performed an observational study of a cohort of 381 non-diabetic humans who reported regular NaS consumption (based on a food frequency questionnaire). This data showed a correlation between NaS consumption and increase in central obesity, fasting blood glucose, Hemoglobin A1c, glucose tolerance test, and alanine aminotransferase. Furthermore, a subgroup analysis comparing high NaS consumers to non-NaS consumers showed a significant increase in Hemoglobin A1c even after correcting for BMI. One hundred and seventy-two randomly selected individuals from this cohort showed intestinal microbial changes chractertized by increases in Enterobacteriaceae, Deltaproteobacteria, and Actinobacteria phylum.

This group also performed a smaller trial of 7 healthy volunteers (5 male, 2 female, aged 28–36 years old) who did not normally consume NaS and who were given saccharin for 1 week at a dose of 5 mg/kg. The majority of these (4/7), termed “NaS responders,” developed poorer glucose tolerance and had altered intestinal microbiota when compared with the “NaS non-responders.” None of the NaS non-responders showed an improvement in glucose tolerance. The microbiome of the NaS responders showed compositional changes by 16S rRNA analysis. Germ-free mice that were given stool samples from NaS responders developed glucose intolerance, while those who were given stool from the same patients pre-NaS or from non-responders did not. Mice given stool from NaS responders showed an increase in Bacteroides fragilis and Weissella (of the order Lactobacillales) and a decrease in Candidatus Arthromitus (of the order Clostridiales). It is unclear what determined individual human responses to NaS consumption. It is also unclear whether NaS selects against certain microbes by inhibiting their function allowing competitors to flourish, or if it directly stimulates other organisms or both.

Effects on Secretion

There are only 2 studies that assess the effect of AS on secretion in the GI tract. In a study performed by Kidd et al48 rat G cells exposed to sucralose showed increased gastrin secretion, which in turn regulates proliferative activity in the GI tract and gastric acid secretion.

Bianchi et al11 performed a controlled trial of male pylorus-ligated rats who were given 250 mg/kg aspartame intragastrically. After 5 hours the rats were killed and the gastric juice volume and concentrations were determined. Aspartame resulted in no inhibiton or stimulation of gastric juice, and no change in concentration of gastric acid. In vitro testing was also performed, and found that aspartame did not affect the proteolytic activity of pepsin or the lipo-lytic activity of pancreatic lipase.

Effects on Absorption/Permeability

Similarly, there is minimal data in the literature on the effect of AS on absorption and intestinal permeability. Two studies by Kimmich et al49 looked specifically at saccharin. In the first study, they isolated intestinal epithelial cells from chicks and found that saccharin had little direct effect on the sodium (Na) dependent sugar transport system from the lumen to the intracellular space. They did find that passive transportation of sugar through the basolateral membrane was inhibited by saccharin. The inhibition of net efflux by saccharin allowed the active system to establish higher concentration gradients of sugars. There also appeared to be a non-specific effect that compromised the driving forces (Na gradient) of the sugar transport system, which would limit delivery of sugar to the epithelial cell and into circulation. In a follow up study,50 the same group hypothesized that the nonspecific effect of saccharin on Na coupled sugar transport could be caused by inducing a change in the permeability of the cell membrane to Na, which would diminish the Na gradient and inhibit sugar transport. However, results actually showed the opposite, that saccharin inhibits Na permeability, so therefore it should not inhibit glucose transport into the cell.

Effects on Gastrointestinal Tract/Gastrointestinal Symptoms

There is minimal data (and no human data) on the effect of AS on GI symptoms, stool form, GI histology, and alterations in the anatomy of the GI tract. Anderson and Kirkland40 noted that the stool of rats fed a diet of 7.5% NaS for 10 days was softer compared with controls (not the typical pellets that are seen), and was not as odiferous per laboratory technician report. Additionally, in the NaS group the cecal tissue weight increased by 45% and the weight of cecal contents increased by 80%, which was hypothesized to be due to osmotic effect of NaS. In a follow up study done by the same group, 49 male rats were fed a control diet or a diet with different concentrations of NaS (1%, 3%, 5%, or 7.5% of their chow).51 They found that stool water increased 4-fold in the group fed NaS at 7.5% compared to the control group, but the stool dry weight remained constant. NaS resulted in a dose-dependent increase in the stool content of an unidentified carbohydrate, and it was hypothesized that this may represent an undigested polysaccharide or polysaccharide synthesized by the microbiota. The cecal enlargement and increased water in the saccharin groups was thought to be secondary to high stool saccharin content and increased stool hydration.

Hibino52 looked at the effect of NaS on the upper GI tract of rats. Sixty-eight male rats were fed a diet supplemented with 5% NaS and 31 control rats were fed a normal diet without NaS. After 80 weeks, the stomachs were examined in 20 experimental and 11 controls. All 20 in the experimental group had hyperkeratosis and 5 had papillomas of the forestomach. In the experimental group, ulcers were found in the glandular stomach in 4 rats and atypical glands were seen in 4 rats. All 11 controls had normal stomachs. It is unclear what the significance of these findings is in humans.

One study done by Sasaki53 aimed to assess potential genotoxicity as a result of AS use. They fed rats NaS, sucralose, aspartame, or acesulfame, sacrificed them after 3 or 24 hours, and then ran a comet assay to test for genotoxicity. They found statistically significant DNA damage above controls for both sucralose and NaS in the stomach and colon. The lowest dose that induced DNA damage for NaS was 1000 mg/kg and was 2000 mg/kg for sucralose, which is much higher than the ADIs for these AS in humans. Acesulfame and aspartame did not increase DNA damage.

Abou-Donia46 found histopathologic changes in the colons of mice fed sucralose plus maltodextran versus control mice, which included lymphocytic infiltrates into the epithelium, epithelial scarring, and mild depletion of goblet cells.

The only study that assessed GI symptoms was performed by Kille et al.54 They found that rabbits fed sucralose developed GI symptoms (perianal soiling, scouring, and cecal enlargement) at doses of 750 and 1000 mg/kg/day. In lower doses the rabbits experienced little GI distress. However, rabbit elimination of sucralose is prolonged compared to other species and they absorb sucralose to a greater degree than other species, so the significance of these findings in humans is unclear.

Conclusions

Although AS are widely utilized in commercially available products, there is a remarkable paucity of medical literature addressing their effects on GI physiology and symptoms. The 2 main areas on which there is data to suggest that AS affect the GI tract include motility and the gut microbiome. Most of the currently available data is derived from in vivo studies. Incretin secretion, which may indirectly result in changes in GI motility, was only shown to be increased in one human study where sucralose was combined with glucose (in other studies looking solely at the AS itself, no effect on incretin secretion was found). Additionally, the downstream effect on motility from the increased incretin secretion was not studied, so the clinical relevance of this finding is unknown. Multiple studies in animals suggest that AS exert measurable effects upon the gut microbiome. To date, only one published study has reported data from humans. The specific effects on the microbiome have been conflicting and the available studies have been heterogeneous in terms of the population studied and both the AS and doses evaluated. There is virtually no data in many other areas relevant to IBS including alterations in permeability, immune activation, and visceral sensation. There are also no studies on the effects of AS on GI symptoms in the general population, or more specifically in IBS patients.

Further research is needed to assess whether AS could be a potential cause of GI symptoms. This is especially pertinent in IBS patients, a population in whom dietary interventions are routinely utilized as a management strategy. IBS patients have been shown to have similar rates of lactose/fructose malabsorption as healthy controls,55 though they are more likely to experience symptoms from malabsorption more commonly than controls, which may be due in part to underlying abnormalities in motility and visceral hypersensitivity.5557 Research to characterize whether AS impact upon pathophysiologic factors relevant to IBS and symptoms in affected patients would be of considerable interest and are strongly encouraged.

Figures
Fig. 1. Chemical structures of artificial sweeteners.
Tables

Products Containing Aspartame

Products containing aspartameAdditional non-nutritive sweeteners
Breath Savers PeppermintSorbitol
Crystal LightAcesulfame K
Diet CokeNone
Diet PepsiAcesulfame K
JELL-O Sugar Free Gelatin SnacksAcesulfame K
Mrs. Butterworth’s Sugar Free SyrupAcesulfame K, neotame, sorbitol
Orbitz GumAcesulfame K, sorbitol, xylitol, glycerol, mannitol
Snapple Diet Lemon TeaNone
Sprite ZeroAcesulfame K
Trident GumAcesulfame K, sucralose, sorbitol, xylitol, glycerin, mannitol

Products Containing Sucralose

Products containing sucraloseAdditional non-nutritive sweeteners
Altoids Smalls Sugar Free PeppermintsSorbitol
Dasani Drops Flavor EnhancerAcesulfame K
Diet V8 SplashNone
Fiber One Cereal - OriginalNone
Gatorade G2 Low CalorieAcesulfame K
Glaceau FruitWater “naturally flavored sparkling water beverage”None
Life Savers Sugar Free Hard Candy-Wild CherryIsomalt
Powerade ZeroAcesulfame K
Quaker High Fiber Instant Oatmeal PacketsNone
Smucker’s Sugar Free Strawberry PreservesPolydextrose
Yoplait Light YogurtAcesulfame K

Products Containing Saccharin

Products containing saccharinAdditional non-nutritive sweeteners
Diet Coke (Fountain soda at Burger King)Aspartame
Diet Mountain DewAspartame, acesulfame K
Fanta Zero SodaAspartame, acesulfame K
Fortuna Foods Pound Cake-Marble FlavorNone
Gold’s Low Calorie Borscht (jar of beets)None
Hainich Sweet Red PeppersNone
IBC Diet Root BeerAspartame
Schweppes Diet Tonic WaterNone
Shasta Diet Grapefruit SodaAspartame
Tab SodaAspartame

Common Products and the Artificial Sweeteners They Contain

ProductsType of artificial sweetener/sugar substitute
Beverages
 7Up TenAspartame, acesulfame K (and HFCS)
 Coca-Cola LifeStevia (and sugar)
 Country Time Lemonade On the go packetsSucralose
 Crystal LightAspartame, acesulfame K
 Crystal Light Pure FitnessStevia (rebiana: Truvia brand) (and sugar)
 Dasani Drops Flavor EnhancerSucralose, acesulfame K
 Diet 7Up, Diet 7Up CherryAspartame, acesulfame K
 Diet Canada Dry GingeraleAspartame, acesulfame K
 Diet CokeAspartame
 Diet Coke Cherry; Diet Coke Lime; Coke ZeroAspartame, acesulfame K
 Diet Coke (Fountain soda at Burger King)Aspartame, saccharin
 Diet Dr. Pepper; Diet Dr. Pepper CherryAspartame
 Diet Mountain DewAspartame, acesulfame K, saccharin
 Diet Mug Root BeerAspartame
 Diet Pepsi, Diet Pepsi Wild CherryAspartame, acesulfame K
 Dr. Pepper TenAspartame, acesulfame K (and HFCS)
 Diet Sierra MistAspartame, acesulfame K
 Diet Snapple (Diet Lemon Tea)Aspartame
 Diet Snapple (Diet Half N’ Half Tea)Acesulfame K, sucralose
 Diet V8 SplashSucralose
 Fanta Zero sodaSaccharin, aspartame, acesulfame K
 FrescaAspartame, acesulfame K
 Gatorade G2 Low CalorieSucralose, acesulfame K
 Glaceau FruitWater “naturally flavored sparkling water beverage”Sucralose
 Glaceau VitaminWater ZeroErythritol, stevia
 Glaceau VitaminWater Zero DropsStevia
 Honest teaStevia (and sugar)
 Kool-aid powdered liquid drink mix; singlesSucralose, acesulfame K
 Lipton Diet Citrus Green Tea & Diet Mixed Berry Green TeaAspartame, acesulfame K
 Minute Maid Just 15 Calories Fruit PunchAspartame, acesulfame K (and HFCS)
 Minute Maid Light LemonadeAspartame, acesulfame K (and HFCS)
 Minute Maid Pure Squeezed Light OJSucralose, acesulfame K
 Minute Maid Drops (lemonade flavor)Sucralose, stevia
 MiO Liquid Water Enhancer drops-OriginalSucralose, acesulfame K
 Mountain Dew Kick Start Orange CitrusSucralose, acesulfame K (and HFCS)
 Nesquik No Sugar Added Chocolate Low Fat MilkSucralose, acesulfame K
 Ocean Spray Diet CranberrySucralose, acesulfame K
 Pepsi NextSucralose, acesulfame K (and HFCS)
 Pepsi MAXAspartame, acesulfame K
 Powerade ZeroSucralose, acesulfame K
 Propel - BerrySucralose, acesulfame K
 Propel Liquid Enhancer (drops)-grape, Propel Powder Packs - LemonSucralose, acesulfame K
 Pure Leaf Iced Tea - Diet LemonSucralose, acesulfame K
 Schweppe’s Diet Tonic WaterSaccharin
 SoBe LifewaterStevia (and sugar)
 SoBe Lifewater 0 CaloriesErythritol, stevia
 Sparkling ICE Waters/LemonadesSucralose, mannitol
 Sprite ZeroAspartame, acesulfame K
 Starbucks DoubleShot Energy - Vanilla Light (in can)Sucralose
 Starbucks Frapaccino Light-Mocha (glass bottle)Sucralose, acesulfame K
 Starbucks Sugar Free Vanilla Beverage SyrupSucralose
 Sunny D OriginalSucralose, acesulfame K, neotame
 Tab SodaSaccharin, aspartame
 Tropicana Trop50 OJStevia
Desserts/Candy
 Brach’s Sugar Free Hard Candy - CinnamonSucralose, isomalt, maltitol
 Breyer’s Ice Cream: No Sugar Added and CarbSmartSorbitol, polydextrose, sucralose, Acesulfame K, glycerin
 Edy’s Slow Churned No Sugar Added Ice CreamMaltitol, sucralose, sorbitol, glycerin, polydextrose
 Hershey’s Lite Chocolate SyrupAcesulfame K
 Hershey’s Sugar Free Chocolate SyrupSucralose, acesulfame K, erythritol, glycerin
 Hershey’s Sugar Free ChocolatesMaltitol, polyglucitol, polydextrose
 JELL-O Sugar Free/Low Calorie Gelatin Snacks and Sugar Free Jello box mixesAspartame, acesulfame K
 JELL-O Reduced Calorie Pudding Cups - ChocolateXylitol, sucralose, acesulfame K
 JELL-O Cook and Serve Sugar Free Calorie Pudding Dessert (box)Aspartame, acesulfame K
 Jelly Belly Sugar Free Gummy BearsSucralose, maltitol
 Jolly Rancher Sugar Free Hard CandyAcesulfame K, isomalt, polyglucitol syrup
 Klondike Bar - Sugar FreeAcesulfame K, sucralose, aspartame, maltitol
 Klondike Bar - 100 CalorieAcesulfame K, sucralose, maltitol
 Life Savers Sugar Free Hard Candy - Wild CherrySucralose, isomalt
 Pilsbury Sugar Free Frosting - Chocolate FudgeSucralose, maltitol, sorbitol, isomalt, polydextrose
 Pilsbury Sugar Free Chocolate Brownie MixMaltitol, sucralose, acesulfame K
 Russell Stover Sugar Free Pecan DelightsSucralose, maltitol
 Skinny Cow Ice Cream SandwichSucralose, acesulfame K, sorbitol, isomalt, polydextrose
 Skinny Cow Ice Cream Bar - ChocolateSorbitol, polydextrose
 Skinny Cow Dreamy Clusters Chocolate CandyMaltitol, polydextrose, glycerin, erythritol
 Tastykake Sugar Free Cream Filled CupcakesMaltitol, polydextrose, maltitol Syrup, sucralose
 Twizzlers Sugar Free CandyAcesulfame K, maltitol, sorbitol, glycerin
 Weight Watcher’s Ice Cream Cones (Vanilla Fudge Sundae)Sucralose, lactitol
 Werther’s Original Sugar Free CandyIsomalt, acesulfame-K
Mints/Gum
 Altoids Smalls Sugar Free PeppermintsSucralose, sorbitol
 Breath Savers PeppermintAspartame, sorbitol
 Doublemint GumAcesulfame K, aspartame, sorbitol, xylitol, maltitol, mannitol, glycerol
 Dentyne Ice Peppermint Sugar Free GumSorbitol, maltitol, mannitol, acesulfame potassium, aspartame, glycerin, sucralose
 Eclipse Sugar Free GumSorbitol, maltitol, glycerol, aspartame, acesulfame K
 Extra Sugar Free GumSorbitol, mannitol, glycerol, aspartame, acesulfame K
 Five Sugar Free Gum - Cobalt Cooling PeppermintSorbitol, glycerol, mannitol, aspartame, acesulfame K
 Ice Breakers Frost MintsAcesulfame K, aspartame, neotame, sucralose, isomalt, xylitol, glycerin, maltitol
 Lifesaver’s Sugar Free MintsSorbitol, aspartame
 Mentos Sugar Free PeppermintsSucralose, acesulfame K, isomalt, polydextrose, glycerol
 Orbit GumAcesulfame K, aspartame, sorbitol, xylitol, glycerol, mannitol
 Pur Gum - WintergreenXylitol, glycerol
 Spry Green Tea Sugar Free GumXylitol
 Stride Sugar Free Peppermint GumSorbitol, glycerin, mannitol, xylitol, acesulfame potassium, aspartame, sucralose
 Trident GumAcesulfame K, aspartame, sucralose, sorbitol, xylitol, glycerin, mannitol
 Wrigley’s Big Red Chewing GumGlycerol, aspartame, acesulfame K
 Wrigley’s Bubble Tape GumAcesulfame K, aspartame, glycerol
Yogurt
 Activia Greek Light Non-Fat Yogurt - BlueberrySucralose, acesulfame K
 Chobani: Simply Chobani 100 CaloriesStevia (and monk fruit extract)
 Dannon: Light and Fit Regular & Greek; Light and Fit Protein ShakesSucralose, acesulfame K
 Dannon Activia: Light; Greek LightSucralose, acesulfame K
 Kroger Carbmaster YogurtSucralose, acesulfame K
 Yoplait: Light; Greek Light; Greek 100 Calories WhipsSucralose, acesulfame K
Cereal
 Cinnamon Toast Crunch Reduced Sugar (75% less)Sucralose
 Fiber 1 Original CerealSucralose
 Fiber 1 80 Calorie Cereal - ChocolateSucralose
 Quaker Oatmeal: Low Sugar Instant Oatmeal Packets; High Fiber Instant OatmealSucralose
Snack bars
 Pure Protein Bars - Chocolate Peanut ButterSucralose, maltitol, glycerin
 Quaker Chewy Bars: 25% Reduced SugarSucralose, glycerin, polydextrose
 Quaker Chewy Bars: 90 Calorie BarsSorbitol, glycerin
 Special K Bars - Chocolate Pretzel, Protein Meal BarSorbitol, glycerin
Condiments
 Coffee-Mate Creamer - Sugar Free Hazelnut (liquid and powder forms)Acesulfame K, sucralose
 Heinz Reduced Sugar KetchupSucralose
 International Delight Coffee Creamer - Fat Free & Sugar Free Toasted HazelnutAcesulfame K, sucralose
 Mrs. Butterworth’s Sugar Free SyrupAspartame, acesulfame K, neotame, sorbitol
 Smucker’s Sugar Free Strawberry PreservesSucralose, polydextrose
 Smucker’s Sugar Free Blueberry SyrupSucralose, acesulfame K, sorbitol
 Starbucks Sugar Free Caramel SyrupSucralose
Shakes/supplements
 Atkins Shakes-Dark Chocolate RoyalSucralose, acesulfame K
 Benefiber Fiber Drink Mix - On the Go (Strawberry Kiwi)Aspartame, acesulfame K
 Citrucel Sugar Free Orange Fiber PowderAspartame
 Glucerna ShakeAcesulfame K, sucralose, glycerol
 Glucerna Nutrition BarAcesulfame K, sucralose, glycerol, lactitol, maltitol, sorbitol
 GNC brand Pro Performance 100% Whey Protein - Vanilla CreamSucralose, acesulfame K
 Isopure Low Carb Protein PowderSucralose
 Metamucil Smooth Texture Orange Sugar Free Fiber PowderAspartame
 Optimum Nutrition 100% Whey Gold Standard Protein PowderAcesulfame K
 Quaker Breakfast Shake - ChocolateSucralose
 Special K Protein Breakfast ShakeSucralose, acesulfame K
Fruit Cups
 Del Monte Fruit Cups - No Sugar Added (Pears, Mandarine Oranges, Mixed fruit)Sorbitol, sucralose, acesulfame K

References
  1. Lovell, RM, and Ford, AC (2012). Global prevalence of and risk factors for irritable bowel syndrome: a meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 10, Array-721.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  2. Longstreth, GF, Thompson, WG, Chey, WD, Houghton, LA, Mearin, F, and Spiller, RC (2006). Functional bowel disorders. Gastroenterology. 130, 1480-1491.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  3. Morcos, A, Dinan, T, and Quigley, EM (2009). Irritable bowel syndrome: role of food in pathogenesis and management. J Dig Dis. 10, 237-246.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  4. Hayes, P, Corish, C, O’Mahony, E, and Quigley, EM (2014). A dietary survey of patients with irritable bowel syndrome. J Hum Nutr Diet. 27, 36-47.
    CrossRef
  5. Chey, WD (2013). The role of food in the functional gastrointestinal disorders: introduction to a manuscript series. Am J Gastroenterol. 108, 694-697.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  6. Ragnarsson, G, and Bodemar, G (1998). Pain is temporally related to eating but not to defaecation in the irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Patients’ description of diarrhea, constipation and symptom variation during a prospective 6-week study. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 10, 415-421.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  7. Ong, DK, Mitchell, SB, and Barrett, JS (2010). Manipulation of dietary short chain carbohydrates alters the pattern of gas production and genesis of symptoms in irritable bowel syndrome. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 25, 1366-1373.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  8. Halmos, EP, Power, VA, Shepherd, SJ, Gibson, PR, and Muir, JG (2014). A diet low in FODMAPs reduces symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome. Gastroenterology. 146, Array-75.
    CrossRef
  9. Mattes, RD, and Popkin, BM (2009). Nonnutritive sweetener consumption in humans: effects on appetite and food intake and their putative mechanisms. Am J Clin Nutr. 89, 1-14.
    KoreaMed CrossRef
  10. Sylvetsky, A, Rother, KI, and Brown, R (2011). Artificial sweetener use among children: epidemiology, recommendations, metabolic outcomes, and future directions. Pediatr Clin North Am. 58, Array-1480.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  11. Bianchi, RG, Muir, ET, Cook, DL, and Nutting, EF (1980). The biological properties of aspartame. II. Actions involving the gastrointestinal system. J Environ Pathol Toxicol. 3, 355-362.
    Pubmed
  12. Golightly, LK, Smolinske, SS, Bennett, ML, Sutherland, EW, and Rumack, BH (1988). Pharmaceutical excipients. Adverse effects associated with ‘inactive’ ingredients in drug products (Part II). Med Toxicol Adverse Drug Exp. 3, 209-240.
    Pubmed
  13. Filer, LJ, and Stegink, LD (1989). Aspartame metabolism in normal adults, phenylketonuric heterozygotes, and diabetic subjects. Diabetes care. 12, 67-74.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  14. Stegink, LD, Brummel, MC, and McMartin, K (1981). Blood methanol concentrations in normal adult subjects administered abuse doses of aspartame. J Toxicol Environ Health. 7, 281-290.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  15. Butchko, HH, Stargel, WW, and Comer, CP (2002). Aspartame: review of safety. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 35, S1-S93.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  16. Grotz, VL, and Munro, IC (2009). An overview of the safety of sucralose. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 55, 1-5.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  17. Schiffman, SS, and Rother, KI (2013). Sucralose, a synthetic organochlorine sweetener: overview of biological issues. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev. 16, 399-451.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  18. Grice, HC, and Goldsmith, LA (2000). Sucralose--an overview of the toxicity data. Food Chem Toxicol. 38, S1-S6.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  19. Roberts, A, Renwick, AG, Sims, J, and Snodin, DJ (2000). Sucralose metabolism and pharmacokinetics in man. Food Chem Toxicol. 38, S31-S41.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  20. Renwick, AG (1986). The metabolism of intense sweeteners. Xenobiotica. 16, 1057-1071.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  21. Hellstrom, PM, Naslund, E, and Edholm, T (2008). GLP-1 suppresses gastrointestinal motility and inhibits the migrating motor complex in healthy subjects and patients with irritable bowel syndrome. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 20, 649-659.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  22. Grider, JR (1994). Role of cholecystokinin in the regulation of gastrointestinal motility. J Nutr. 124, 1334S-1339S.
    Pubmed
  23. Thomas, PA, Akwari, OE, and Kelly, KA (1979). Hormonal control of gastrointestinal motility. World J Surg. 3, 545-552.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  24. Ogawa, E, Hosokawa, M, and Harada, N (2011). The effect of gastric inhibitory polypeptide on intestinal glucose absorption and intestinal motility in mice. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 404, 115-120.
    CrossRef
  25. Edholm, T, Degerblad, M, and Grybäck, P (2010). Differential incretin effects of GIP and GLP-1 on gastric emptying, appetite, and insulin-glucose homeostasis. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 22, Array-1200.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  26. Savage, AP, Adrian, TE, Carolan, G, Chatterjee, VK, and Bloom, SR (1987). Effects of peptide YY (PYY) on mouth to caecum intestinal transit time and on the rate of gastric emptying in healthy volunteers. Gut. 28, 166-170.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  27. Wiley, JW, Lu, YX, and Chung, OY (1991). Mechanism of action of peptide YY to inhibit gastric motility. Gastroenterology. 100, 865-872.
    Pubmed
  28. Sikander, A, Rana, SV, and Prasad, KK (2009). Role of serotonin in gastrointestinal motility and irritable bowel syndrome. Clin Chim Acta. 403, 47-55.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  29. Jang, HJ, Kokrashvili, Z, and Theodorakis, MJ (2007). Gut-expressed gustducin and taste receptors regulate secretion of glucagon-like peptide-1. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 104, 15069-15074.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  30. Kidd, M, Modlin, IM, Gustafsson, BI, Drozdov, I, Hauso, O, and Pfragner, R (2008). Luminal regulation of normal and neoplastic human EC cell serotonin release is mediated by bile salts, amines, tastants, and olfactants. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 295, G260-G272.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  31. Mace, OJ, Schindler, M, and Patel, S (2012). The regulation of K- and L-cell activity by GLUT2 and the calcium-sensing receptor CasR in rat small intestine. J Physiol. 590, 2917-2936.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  32. Margolskee, RF, Dyer, J, and Kokrashvili, Z (2007). T1R3 and gustducin in gut sense sugars to regulate expression of Na+-glucose cotransporter 1. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 104, 15075-15080.
    CrossRef
  33. Geraedts, MC, Troost, FJ, and Saris, WH (2011). Different tastants and low-caloric sweeteners induce differential effects on the release of satiety hormones. Food Chem. 129, 731-738.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  34. Geraedts, MCP, Troost, FJ, and Saris, WHM (2012). Addition of sucralose enhances the release of satiety hormones in combination with pea protein. Mol Nutr Food Res. 56, 417-424.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  35. Fujita, Y, Wideman, RD, and Speck, M (2009). Incretin release from gut is acutely enhanced by sugar but not by sweeteners in vivo. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 296, E473-E479.
    CrossRef
  36. Ma, J, Bellon, M, and Wishart, JM (2009). Effect of the artificial sweetener, sucralose, on gastric emptying and incretin hormone release in healthy subjects. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 296, G735-G739.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  37. Ford, HE, Peters, V, and Martin, NM (2011). Effects of oral ingestion of sucralose on gut hormone response and appetite in healthy normal-weight subjects. Eur J Clin Nutr. 65, 508-513.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  38. Steinert, RE, Frey, F, Töpfer, A, Drewe, J, and Beglinger, C (2011). Effects of carbohydrate sugars and artificial sweeteners on appetite and the secretion of gastrointestinal satiety peptides. Br J Nutr. 105, 1320-1328.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  39. Brown, RJ, Walter, M, and Rother, KI (2009). Ingestion of diet soda before a glucose load augments glucagon-like peptide-1 secretion. Diabetes care. 32, 2184-2186.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  40. Anderson, RL, and Kirkland, JJ (1980). The effect of sodium saccharin in the diet on caecal microflora. Food Cosmet Toxicol. 18, 353-355.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  41. Anderson, RL (1985). Some changes in gastrointestinal metabolism and in the urine and bladders of rats in response to sodium saccharin ingestion. Food Chem Toxicol. 23, 457-463.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  42. Mallett, AK, Rowland, IR, and Bearne, CA (1985). Modification of rat caecal microbial biotransformation activities by dietary saccharin. Toxicology. 36, 253-262.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  43. Naim, M, Zechman, JM, Brand, JG, Kare, MR, and Sandovsky, V (1985). Effects of sodium saccharin on the activity of trypsin, chymotrypsin, and amylase and upon bacteria in small intestinal contents of rats. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 178, 392-401.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  44. Lawrie, CA, Renwick, AG, and Sims, J (1985). The urinary excretion of bacterial amino-acid metabolites by rats fed saccharin in the diet. Food Chem Toxicol. 23, 445-450.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  45. Pfeffer, M, Ziesenitz, SC, and Siebert, G (1985). Acesulfame K, cyclamate and saccharin inhibit the anaerobic fermentation of glucose by intestinal bacteria. Z Ernahrungswiss. 24, 231-235.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  46. Abou-Donia, MB, El-Masry, EM, Abdel-Rahman, AA, McLendon, RE, and Schiffman, SS (2008). Splenda alters gut microflora and increases intestinal p-glycoprotein and cytochrome p-450 in male rats. J Toxicol Environ Health A. 71, 1415-1429.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  47. Suez, J, Korem, T, and Zeevi, D (2014). Artificial sweeteners induce glucose intolerance by altering the gut microbiota. Nature. 514, 181-186.
    Pubmed
  48. Kidd, M, Hauso, Ø, Drozdov, I, Gustafsson, BI, and Modlin, IM (2009). Delineation of the chemomechanosensory regulation of gastrin secretion using pure rodent G cells. Gastroenterology. 137, Array-Array.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  49. Kimmich, GA, Randles, J, and Anderson, RL (1988). Inhibition of the serosal sugar carrier in isolated intestinal epithelial cells by saccharin. Food Chem Toxicol. 26, 927-934.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  50. Kimmich, GA, Randles, J, and Anderson, RL (1989). Effect of saccharin on the ATP-induced increase in Na+ permeability in isolated chicken intestinal epithelial cells. Food Chem Toxicol. 27, 143-149.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  51. Anderson, RL (1983). Effect of saccharin ingestion on stool composition in relation to caecal enlargement and increased stool hydration. Food Chem Toxicol. 21, 255-257.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  52. Hibino, T, Hirasawa, Y, and Arai, M (1985). Morphologic changes in the urinary bladder and stomach after long-term administration of sodium saccharin in F344 rats. Cancer Lett. 29, 255-263.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  53. Sasaki, YF, Kawaguchi, S, and Kamaya, A (2002). The comet assay with 8 mouse organs: results with 39 currently used food additives. Mutat Res. 519, 103-119.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  54. Kille, JW, Tesh, JM, and McAnulty, PA (2000). Sucralose: assessment of teratogenic potential in the rat and the rabbit. Food Chem Toxicol. 38, S43-S52.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  55. Brandt, LJ, Chey, WD, and American College of Gastroenterology Task Force on Irritable Bowel Syndrome (2009). An evidence-based position statement on the management of irritable bowel syndrome. Am J Gastroenterol. 104, S1-S35.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  56. Zhu, Y, Zheng, X, and Cong, Y (2013). Bloating and distention in irritable bowel syndrome: the role of gas production and visceral sensation after lactose ingestion in a population with lactase deficiency. Am J Gastroenterol. 108, 1516-1525.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  57. Tomba, C, Baldassarri, A, Coletta, M, Cesana, BM, and Basilisco, G (2012). Is the subjective perception of lactose intolerance influenced by the psychological profile?. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 36, 660-669.
    Pubmed CrossRef


This Article

e-submission

Archives

Aims and Scope