Talk:Erythritol/Archive 1

BioFilm inhibition?
Looks like Erythritol may inhibit some biofilms. Saw this quote in a journal: "Erythritol had an inhibitory effect on P. aeruginosa and S. aureus growth (p<0.01) at over 5% concentrations". Source: Dowd SE, Sun Y, Smith E, Kennedy JP, Jones CE, Wolcott R. Effects of biofilm treatments on the multi-species Lubbock chronic wound biofilm model. J Wound Care. 2009 Dec;18(12):508, 510-12. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20081576 129.78.233.212 (talk) 00:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Untitled
The most serious problem with this page is the claim that Erythritol has been approved for use in the United States, which implies FDA approval. The supplied citation (reference 1, http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodIngredientsPackaging/GenerallyRecognizedasSafeGRAS/GRASListings/ucm154185.htm) links to an FDA response which states "The agency has not, however, made its own determination regarding the GRAS status of the subject use of erythritol." I can imagine the reason why someone would want to distort the facts in this case. This statement needs to be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.164.120 (talk) 05:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Approving GRAS use with "FDA has no questions" for a product is FDA conditional approval for use. It is an acknowledgment that the petitioner has shown the product is safe, provided no contrary evidence is presented to the FDA. (as explained in the referenced FDA response, archived at https://wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20171031032916/https://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/GRAS/NoticeInventory/ucm154185.htm). The URL of the GRAS Notice for Erythritol has been changed to https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/fdcc/index.cfm?set=GRASNotices&id=76 (all FDA URIs have been changed to separate information subject to the executive order prohibiting public distribution of some data). Drbits (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

This page was in serious need of cleanup. Erythritol is a wonderful ingredient, but this page didn't do it justice! So I spent a few minutes as a bit of an expert in this field and cleaned things up. I hope I have caught all my typos, but you never know... Blueandwhiteg3 05:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Where did you get your information that the US ruled a 2kcal/g value for it. Furthermore values are often the geometric mean value of all values of a certain category. For instance the EU ruled a general value of 2.4 for all sugar-alcohol based sweeteners, although erythritol isn't taken into consideration yet. --Slicky 21:03, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Technically, erythritol is an open chain carbohydrate, like glycerin (AKA glycerol), not a sugar alcohol. Saccharides (sugars and sugar alcohols) are rings of 5 or more carbons, each attached to one or more hydroxy (HO*) units (the * represents that this is a radical that is part of a molecule). Maltitol is a double ring structure. Carbohydrate rings can be converted to an open chain carbohydrate by catalyzed reaction with water (H2O). Sugar alcohols are Carbohydrates with an added oxygen atom. Drbits (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * US Title 21 CFR 101.9.c.1.i.F specifies Nutrition Labelling for Sugar Alcohols. It specifies that erythritol should be counted as 0 Calories per gram (kcal/g is the scientific equivalent for dietary Calories per gram - the word Calories is always capitalized, because, for convenience, dietary Calories are 1000 calories or 1 kcal). Because erythritol is poorly metabolized by humans and human gut microbes, it effectively has 0.2 Calories per gram as measured by Bomb Calorimetry multiplied by (1 - the excretion fraction) {2 kcal/gram * .1}. Additional reference: http://www.sugar-and-sweetener-guide.com/erythritol.html Drbits (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure where the information on the USDA labeling requirements came from, but I drink Sobe life water(a erythritol product) all the time and it is labeled as 0 Cal. Could we please see a reference for this? --The_spacemonkey 12:09, July 20, 2009 (UTC)

Some Unbiased Facts Please
What is the industrial source of the product?

What are the naturally occurring sources of the product justifying the statement "Erythritol has long been part of the human diet."?

Have any long term safety and food/drug interaction studies been done on it?

This article at presents sounds like something written by the Erythritol industry...

This article seems completely biased. It comes across as a panacea. I would like to see answers to the above questions as well as how long has erythritol been consumed in this isolated form.


 * Not sure what you are talking about here. It's got a lot of downsides listed right in the article. The other information may well have not been studied yet - so do some research and figure it out! --66.7.96.6 20:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi all, I see no discussion of a controversy - but in my experience covering chemicals, there is no chemical without a controvesy behind it. For sure I would love to see more on the industrial sources, potential contaminants, and effects on the body. I will look...Eric Francis/PlanetWaves 71.169.26.214 16:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I cant vounch for what actual bacterial or yeast strain is used in industrial fermentation of sugar is used to produce erythritol but there seem to be many options in this patent. Benkeboy 13:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree; this article doesn't cite a single source, and seems instead like it was written as an advertisement for the chemical. 67.188.23.253 17:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I also agree - this article just feels like an ad. I'm waiting for Wikiscanner to enable article-based edit history searching...  --WayneMokane 14:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the tone of the article is very non-neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.240.90.36 (talk) 14:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The main article has been extensively edited since this discussion section was written. The industrial process is specified, the statement "Erythritol has long ..." has been replaced with some examples (fruits in the family Rosacea contain some erythritol). The FDA GRAS notice 00076 and the associated documents explain testing by private parties for safety. The main article also discusses side effects when sufficient erythritol reaches gut microbes to cause problems (about 90% of erythritol is absorbed in the small intestine, so metabolism by microbes in the large intestine is about 10% of sugar alcohols and soluble fiber). Most of the information about erythritol is only available from industry research reports and comparison with the related open-chain carbohydrate glycerin and sugar alcohols like sorbitol. Drbits (talk) 00:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

A drink that has "Natural Erythritol" as an ingredient
There is a soda that has "Natural Erythritol" as an ingredient in the USA. So does this mean that the Erythritol was procurred or made naturally? Is there un-natural Erythritol? Antmusic (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I have had experience with one soda which claims to have "natural" eryhtritol in it. It is sweetened with Coca-Cola/Cargill's name brand Truvia. Without going into detail, I will simply state that my experience with ingestion of this product was extremely negative and suggest extreme caution. I researched and found that there are many questions regarding the nature of this substance and it's sources. Check out: http://freedomandlinux.wordpress.com/2010/03/31/the-truvia-deception/ for more info. Etls1 (talk) 21:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC) 20 Feb 2015: The above web page has been deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodney yonder (talk • contribs) 15:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Good thing too, because on the Wayback Machine, it's clearly a full-blown conspiracist website full of utter garbage. 80.6.203.241 (talk) 04:28, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Humectant
E_number lists erythritol (E968) as a humectant yet this article says it is not hygroscopic. TristanDC (talk) 22:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

That reference as a humectant has been removed. Drbits (talk) 00:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging
This article talk page was automatically added with WikiProject Food and drink banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here. Maximum and carefull attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories, but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns, please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 17:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Where did sweetness come from? My 1996 Merck Index lists sweetness as twice as sweet as sucrose. Jjwasil (talk) 01:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Erythritol And Dogs
Xylitol could kill a dog if it ingests it. Could Erythritol do the same?174.6.130.25 (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)BeeCier

This article reads like an ad for Erythritol
If anybody knows that the template for that is and how to put it on a page, this would be a prime candidate. "This is a unique characteristic, as other sugar alcohols are not absorbed directly by the body in this manner, and consequently are more prone to causing gastric distress [4]." "Erythritol has been certified as tooth-friendly[8]. " Sharktapus (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I found this page from looking at this: http://zsweet.com/htmls/faq/what-is-erythritol.html Could be that they are the ones who wrote the page, and then back sourced it to sell their product on their site... Livingston 20:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Does Not Cause or Does Not Contribute To Tooth Decay?
The page currently states that "[erythritol] does not cause tooth decay," but does it contribute to tooth decay? Causation and contribution are subtly different and it is important to distinguish between them. If erythritol does contribute to tooth decay, in what manner does it do that? The statement that occurs later in the article that suggests erythritol does not contribute to tooth decay is in this sentence:

"The sugar alcohol cannot be metabolized by oral bacteria, and so does not contribute to tooth decay," but no citation is provided for this claim. We need to know how the claim that erythritol does not contribute to tooth decay has been medically/scientifically proven. Surely such a citation for this claim should be available in some archive from the American Dental Association, the National Dental Association, the American Association for Dental Research, the American College of Dentists, etc.

And if the claim is true that erythritol does not contribute to tooth decay, then the text "does not cause tooth decay" at the top of the article should be more appropriately changed to "does not contribute to tooth decay."

seattledancer 18:54, Mar 22, 2012 (UTC)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24852946 A lower number of dentin caries teeth and surfaces was found in the erythritol group than in the xylitol or control groups. Time to the development of caries lesions was longest in the erythritol group.

I have no references, but I have heard from some scientists that it is probably most effective to eat BOTH: Xylitol and Erythritol. ee1518 (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Erythritol In The Colon
The Swiss source for the statement that "About 10% enters the colon," is provided, but does the erythritol just stay and accumulate forever in the colon or does it naturally get processed out of the colon at some point? If so, how does the erythritol get processed out of the colon? Are there any known lasting effects on the colon of the erythritol being in the colon? More information and citations on these details would also be helpful and informative.

seattledancer 18:55, Mar 22, 2012 (UTC)


 * "Enters the colon" is a simplification. If the appropriate microbes exist, they can metabolize erythritol (and cause the mentioned side effects). No erythritol remains in the colon. All carbohydrates are either absorbed, metabolized by microbes or excreted. Microbes and parasites can stick to the colon walls, but food does not (there is a myth that gluten sticks to intestinal walls). About half of human feces is microbes, a small amount is toxins excreted into the intestines by the liver (such as bilirubin, which gives feces their normal smell), a small amount is the results of microbial metabolism, and the rest is undigested food (fiber, some proteins, etc.) and water. Drbits (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

was labeled as zero calorie in the EU
in the first paragraph you say: "some countries, such as Japan and the United States, label it as zero-calorie, while European Union regulations currently label it and all other sugar alcohols at 0.24 kcal/g."

in fact is is labeled as zero calorie in the European Union as well:

here is the reference: http://www.foodnavigator.com/Market-Trends/EU-recognises-erythritol-as-zero-calorie-sweetener — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.61.206 (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Erythritol kills fruit flies
Links to articles on Phys dot org http://phys.org/news/2014-06-flies-sweetener.html and The Verge http://www.theverge.com/2014/6/4/5780428/scientists-discover-that-popular-artificial-sweetener-also-kills. --GwaliorDoric (talk) 21:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Contradiction
The last two sentences of the first paragraph seem to contradict each other.

"Under U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ... has a caloric value of 0.2 kilocalories per gram"

"Some countries, such as...the United States, label it as zero-calorie"

Or does the FDA label it as zero under a certain threshold? Reference?

104.139.4.167 (talk) 02:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

20 Feb 2015: The European Commission directive 2008/100/EC changes the energy conversion value of erythritol to zero calories.

INACCURACIES: 'Kilocalories'? 0.2 kilocalories would be 200 calories. This cannot be right; a gram of sugar is only 4 calories, so how then could a gram of erythritol be 200 calories? The kilo part was likely added as an accident. I will correct this. DrBurningBunny (talk) 09:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The American "calorie" is equivalent to the European kilocalorie. Why would you change a direct quote (from directive 2008/100/EC) without even looking at the source? Junkyardprince (talk) 03:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

The article is currently crap. Just look at these sentences:
 * "Erythritol is 60–70% as sweet as sucrose (table sugar) yet it is almost noncaloric".
 * "90% of erythritol is absorbed before it enters the large intestine".

Even if it does not (rapidly) affect blood glucose, it does NOT mean it has no calories.

Wikipedia also claims "Erythritol is tooth-friendly; it cannot be metabolized by oral bacteria, so it does not contribute to tooth decay". Actually it "contributes": it PREVENTS tooth decay =Caries. Just search Pubmed Eryhtritol Caries. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5011233/

ee1518 (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Stereochemistry
Shouldn't there be a stereochemistry section about this compound? I would maybe mention the fact that the shape of the molecule and the stereogenic centers suggest 4 possible stereoisomers, but there are only actually 2, because of meso compounds. Maybe not, but I think it would be an important topic for almost any organic compound. 74.215.10.147 (talk) 18:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

GI distress
The article incorrectly states that erythritol causes more GI distress (gas and bloating). As clearly shown on the reference (as well as other references) erythritol does NOT cause GI distress like most other sugar alcohols.


 * Erythritol causes much less GI distress than sugar alcohols. When the appropriate microbes exist in the colon to metabolize a carbohydrate entering the colon, the metabolites often include gases that the colon cannot absorb and sometimes include toxins that cause diarrhea. The stomach and small intestine are hostile to almost all microbes. The average human large intestine (colon) contains about 2000 different strains of microbes. Parts of the colon provide oxygen to the microbes and they produce CO2 and water, which the colon can absorb. Some anaerobic microbes (those that do not need oxygen) live in the later parts of the colon and convert carbohydrates to water, short-chain fatty acids (SCLs), alcohols, lactic acid, and methane (metabolites). The methane is what causes most intestinal gas. Some nausea is caused by an excess of microbe metabolites, but most nausea is caused by toxins released by some microbes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drbits (talk • contribs) 01:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 14:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Broken cite removed from Side Effects
This citation had broken markup and wasn't explicayed in text. Copied below in case someone wants to fix it.

l | last1 = Hino | first1 = H. | last2 = Kasai | first2 = S. | last3 = Hattori | first3 = N. | last4 = Kenjo | first4 = K. | title = A case of allergic urticaria caused by erythritol | journal = Journal of Dermatology | volume = 27 | issue = 3 | pages = 163–5 | date = Mar 2000 | pmid = 10774141 | url = http://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/10016271926/en/ }} Here.it.comes.again (talk) 06:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That was because somebody deleted chunks of the page. I have fixed it. The "Erythritol and human digestion" and "Side effects" sections do have some redundancy, but I'm too tired to rewrite it right now, or probably ever.Junkyardprince (talk) 04:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Borborygmi
The Wikipedia Style Manual specifies common words, and discourages technical (and rare) words. "Borborygmi" is far from a common word. "Borborygmi" is found by Google n-grams with the same frequency as "stomach rumbling". However, the reader whose native language is not English will understand "stomach rumbling" but will not understand "borborygmi". Nick Beeson (talk) 14:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Laxative effects
Recent edits that sought to minimize the laxative effect used refs to industry sources (a book written by Helen Mitchell, an employee of Danisco Sweeteners (a DuPont sweetener manufacturer), and another book that had a chapter on erythritol written by Peter de Cock, an employee of international food conglomerate Cargill). Both books use primary studies as sources for claims. Please restrict claims about digestive effects to review studies as specified in MEDRS. Ratel (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that a peer-reviewed MEDRS source would be needed to change the previous (and current) content. It's sufficient to say that very high doses may cause GI upset and diarrhea, as is stated now. --Zefr (talk) 00:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I love the taste and cooling effect of a respirator in my ice tea. Until I learned the rumbling and and worse effects were about 0.07 g/kg, rather than numbers the articles referenced on Wikipedia. Big diff. HillbillyWoman (talk) 19:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)