Talk:Saccharin

Question on its banning/ban withdrawal
"The FDA in the United States considered banning saccharin in 1977, but after a moratorium was placed on the ban to study the safety of saccharin, the ban was withdrawn in 1991. Likewise, in 2000, the United States repealed a law requiring saccharin products to carry health warning labels."

This makes no sense. Was there a ban between 1977-1991, or not. It says the United States CONSIDERED a ban.... and then it jumps to saying the ban was WITHDRAWN. If there was no ban, how could it be withdrawn?


 * 1977-91 FDA recommends banning it, and Congress decided not to explicitly ban it but instead to make it something requiring a health safety warning. The FDA withdrew its proposal in 1991, and Congress withdrew (repealed) the labeling requirement in 2000. --Kaze0010 10:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Quantifying sweetness
how can one substance be "300 times sweeter" than another? how can you objectively quantify sweetness?


 * bodnotbod provided this link in the Talk page for Aspartame: Basic_taste. The Wikipedia page on Sweetness may help, too. --Joe Sewell 30 June 2005 16:10 (UTC)

Well, double trouble, the article on Sweetness says Saccharin is 510 (and not 'about' 300) times sweeter than Sugar....

Molecular drawing
Could someone who is conversant in chemestry please check the molecular drawing for accuracy? It is based on the previous image of the molecule, but I'm a graphic artist who hasn't studied chem in years...

Looks good to me. It matches what's on chemfinder, and the structure itself makes sense.

== Cyclamate was avThe article states that saccharin ban was protested because it was the only sweetener at the time but ... cyclamate is known from the 1930s, init? -- Ah yes. Cyclamate was banned too. ailable? ==

Cancer
In the 'Saccharin and Cancer' section, it says that

"The notorious and influential studies of the kind published in 1977 have been criticized for the ridiculously high dosages of saccharin that were given to the test subject rats; dosages were commonly hundreds of times higher than "normal" ingestion expectations would be for a consumer."

This is, I believe, typical of drug studies, where actually buying 1,000,000 of the animal would be ridiculous, and so, a smaller number (10,000 typically?) is used, with far higher dosages than normal, and real-life population numbers are extrapolated from that. Am I correct here? --Superiority 00:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Not quite, while animal studies typically use smaller sample sizes (10,000 is even large, more like 500-1000), they use of a high dosing regimen is purely up to the investigator. Sometimes, though not always, the high dose size is done due to budget constraints on long term studies (being more expensive). This can lead to claims that studies with dosages outside the range of recommended daily intake are flawed. However, just because the doses were high does not mean there is NO danger... Enviropearson (talk) 22:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The main reason they use high doses is to gain a greater confidence in the result. If giving 1000 times the recommended dosage produces no ill effects, then they can be more confident that the regular dose is also safe. At lower dosage levels, the reaction to an unhealthy chemical will vary more widely between individual animals. At higher dosages, the reaction is more consistent. The second reason is that a high dose can provide some approximation of the potential damage of a normal dose taken over a much longer time span. However the use of high doses can make the result less applicable to everyday situations. 194.126.102.98 (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This article ignores some important studies
See the paragraph "Smoldering Battle Over Saccharin Heats Up" in http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol278/issue5339/s-scope.dtl#top. There is also the webpage http://www.cspinet.org/reports/saccomnt.htm provided in the External Links section. These webpages mention studies that are not properly reported in the article. For example, consider the following paragraph in the article:


 * "Many studies have since been done on saccharin, with some showing a correlation between saccharin consumption and increased cancer (especially bladder cancer) and others showing no such correlation. The notorious and influential studies of the kind published in 1977 have been criticized for the ridiculously high dosages of saccharin that were given to the test subject rats; dosages were commonly hundreds of times higher than "normal" ingestion expectations would be for a consumer. No study has ever shown health risks in humans at normal doses. Furthermore, the biological mechanism believed to be responsible for the rat cancers has been shown to be inapplicable to humans because of differences in urine composition between rats and humans."

The second sentence suggests that the studies mentioned in the first sentence are ridiculous. The first two sentences are separately accurate, but the overall message is wrong. This is what is called insinuation, and it is against the Neutral Point Of View policy. Moreover, studies done after 1977 explain that the argument in the remainder of the paragraph is flawed (see the webpages that are cited just above). Moreover the sentence "No study has ever shown health risks in humans at normal doses." is not sourced, and should be removed in accordance with the WP:verifiability policy. In fact, the studies that are reported in the above webpages mention that some correlation has been shown between cancer and consumption of saccharin and other chemical sweeteners in the population. It is natural that many epidemiological studies do not consider saccharin alone because most commercial sweeteners mixe different chemicals (e.g. cyclamate and saccharin). Here is a quote:


 * "Numerous case-control studies have sought to evaluate the relationship between artificial-sweetener consumption (saccharin and cyclamate were generally used together) and the incidence of bladder cancer. Several studies, including some of the largest ones, found significant increases in rates of bladder cancer.
 * National Cancer Institute (3,010 total cases) found relative risks of between 1.6 and 3.0 in several subgroups of Americans, including low-risk white females and heavy-smoking males.
 * Morrison (555 British cases) found an increased risk (RR = 2.3) in British females (but not males or Japanese cases) who consumed more than 10 tablets of sugar substitutes (primarily saccharin) a day."

The study of the National Cancer Institute and the study of Morrision that are mentioned just above are two of many epidemiological studies on artificial sweeteners (see above webpages) --Lumière 03:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * While this is an old discussion, and though it appears that this user has long since packed his bags and left, I thought I'd comment here, since I've made changes relevant to this topic. The way the article was worded was a bit disingenuous, and I've clarified it so it says no study has found a causal relationship between saccharin consumption and health risks (and I doubt such a study would ever be done for ethical reasons ). However, to deemphasize the debate is also disingenuous, since there is still debate on this issue in the scientific community (see the IARC link in the text for some reaons why the human studies may not be of any value, or if you can, the article mentioned in the PubMed abstract, for arguements why the rat studes were flawed).Gershwinrb 07:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Why the article on saccharine does not mention the recent studies:
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6843803/
 * ? 194.230.147.125 (talk) 16:58, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What is the link below my post? The link does not work. 194.230.147.125 (talk) 21:55, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Saccharin was de-listed from the National Toxicology Program's listing of carcinogenic substances in 2006, 11th Review. http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/index.cfm?objectid=72016262-BDB7-CEBA-FA60E922B18C2540

Etymology
Can someone check the etymological claim (from Greek X, from Sanskrit) in OED or something? This sounds unlikely : such claims are often made by Hindu nationalists who like to claim that PIE = Sanskrit. 80.168.29.18 08:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Who is Mamun "Mono" Shaikh?
On March 21st, someone introduced erroneous information into the Discovery and History section. For example, they changed 'Constantin Fahlberg' to 'Mamun "Mono" Shaikh'.12.64.128.22 15:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Pronounciation?
Since the name has very odd spelling, shouldn't there be pronounciation information on it? Undeaf 18:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Would add it myself but I have no idea of the corect pronunciation ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.177.30 (talk) 00:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The spelling is not at all odd. I can't do IPA symbols, but the phonetic spelling is sac-ka-Rin or sack-a-Rin. – Mike . lifeguard  &#124; @en.wb 08:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Quotes
In the same article there are two quoted statements from Teddy Roosevelt "Anybody who says saccharin is injurious is an idiot." and "Anyone who thinks saccharin is dangerous is an idiot"

Does anyone know exactly what he said else quote marks should be removed.

That was President Roosevelt, with the exact quote being: anyone who thinks saccharin is injurious to health is an idiot" Enviropearson (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the paragraph which included the uncited version of the quote; it did not mention anything about cancer and just restated the previous section "Saccharin and government regulation". 159.124.170.11 (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed text
I removed this text: "The notorious and influential studies published in 1977 have been criticized for the very high dosages of saccharin that were given to test subject rats; dosages were commonly hundreds of times higher than 'normal' ingestion expectations would be for a consumer." because of the objections raised here. As said, this is typical in trials. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superiority (talk • contribs) 21:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Saccharine redirect
As of right now, Saccharine redirects to this page, but a footnote on the very first word of the summary indicates that they refer to entirely different things. Should these two words really have the same article? 209.204.189.199 (talk) 20:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This seems STILL to be true, after more than a decade. My understanding is that the -e ending forms an adjective implying extreme sweetness, but totally unrelated to the commercial product Saccharin.  incorrect? rags (talk) 04:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Government Regulation Section
I added more detail to the history of saccharin regarding Roosevelt and Wiley, with a quote from Wiley and a correction to the quote from Roosevelt. My reference may be off though, I direct to the online article that has the exchange within it (see []), but it is actually attributed in that article to a book by Wiley and sourced there... what would be the proper source? I think the FDA article is a worthy place to send people, but not sure if it is the proper one, any thoughts?Enviropearson (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2008 (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) 18:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Oldest Artificial Sweetner?
I'm a bit confused by the assertion that Saccharin is the oldest artificial sweetner -- the ancient Romans were believed to produce lead acetate by boiling grape must in lead vessels thousands of years before saccharin was discovered. Perhaps this statement needs to be qualified in some way? Otherwise, it appears factually incorrect, and in need of removal. --AdamRoach (talk) 20:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

"Artificial" Sweetener.
Johnwrd (talk) 22:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)What is "Artificial" about saccharin? It is made from a (former) vegetable product. The Tests carried out on saccharin were using doses the equivalent of 1000 cans of Soda a day. A very simple fact is also ignored by the Anti-Saccharin Lobby; Diabetics have no higher rate of Bladder Cancer than anyone else, and those statistics were collected when Diabetics were the primary users of saccharin. Some experts on the subject recommend 'mixing' sweeteners and sugar, so you only intake a small amount of each. The health risks (if there are any) would then be minimal.Johnwrd (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I concur. Saccharin is simply something adding sweetness to the taste. Sometimes, if not often, natural. --96.54.235.1 (talk) 04:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I see the problem. Saccharin and saccharine are too different things, but they both are redirected to the article "Saccharin"... I created a stub for it. --Enigma55 (talk) 05:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The redirect was restored due to Articles_for_deletion/Saccharine. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Discovery
I notice that the story of saccharin's discovery in this article contradicts the one in Ira Remsen, where this article says the sweet taste was noticed by Fahlberg, and the other that it was noticed by Remsen. I'm not sure which is correct... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.48.82.100 (talk) 12:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

It is well known to historians that Remsen and Fahlberg later contested their relative contributions to the discovery of saccharin. The current wording of this article (on 10 June 2013) takes a pronounced POV, explicitly accusing Fahlberg of "academic theft", when the situation is not -- and never has been -- completely clear. Their first publication in 1878, listed in the sources at the end of this article, is joint-authored, with Fahlberg's name first and Remsen's second. This ordering of the names was presumably on Remsen's authority, since he was the director of the laboratory. The first sentence of this German paper does not help to resolve the question of relative contributions to the discovery. The current wording of the current Wikipedia article ("a mere glance at the first sentence [of the 1878 paper] ... is enough ..." [to incriminate Fahlberg]) is false. That first sentence simply states that a few years previously, Remsen began a series of investigations that continues with the present co-authored paper. We can infer that the sweet taste of the new substance was noted by both Remsen and Fahlberg, since it is described in the co-authored 1878 paper (on p. 470) as "pleasantly sweet, even sweeter than cane sugar." There is no indication, and no way to know for certain, which of them tasted it first. I will now edit the relevant sentences to remove the POV character.Ajrocke (talk) 17:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Synthesis Corrections
The section under "Chemistry" discussing the Remsen & Fahlberg synthesis contains some minor errors. The intermediate o- and p-chlorosulfones (not chlorosulfonic acids as stated in the text) and the o-sulfonamide include too many oxygens on the sulfur atom. Those substituents should read "SO2Cl" and "SO2NH2" respectively. The original creator of the image would be able to make this correction more quickly than I would, but if there's no response in a couple of days, I'll make a new figure. Nllewellyn (talk) 02:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC) Could somebody please fix a structure in the Maumee synthesis? The product of the treatment of the diazonium with sulfur dioxide had an aqueous workup which resulted in the sulfonic acid, not the depicted sulfinic acid. Meaning, could somebody please change the SO2H to SO3H? Reference 40 has this wrong as well, probably just a typo back then. See ref https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ciuz.201100574 for a correct depiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.102.10.167 (talk) 05:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Section "Warning label ... removal"; "SWEETEST", not "Sweetness"
The following may be gleaned from merely reading the public record available on the internet. Does this amount to "original research"?

The third paragraph of the section currently begins,


 * "The delisting of saccharin led to legislation, known as the Sweetness Act; which was signed into law on December 21, 2000, repealing the warning label requirement for products containing saccharin.[citation needed]"

"Citation needed"? I'll say. Though this "Sweetness Act" sentence has been copied many places on the internet, it's pretty inaccurate, I think. Looking at the Library of Congress' "Thomas" website I found that:

On December 14, 2000, during the 106th Congress, U.S. Rep. John Edward Porter (R-IL) introduced House Resolution 5656, the “Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001”. Title V (“General Provisions”), Section 517 of H.R. 5656 reads


 * “SEC. 517. Section 403 [misbranded food] (o) of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ([Title] 21 U.S.C. 343(o)) is repealed. Subsections (c) and (d) of section 4 of the Saccharin Study and Labeling Act are repealed.”

On the day of its introduction, H.R. 5656 was “Referred to the House Committee on Appropriations”.

On December 15, 2000, H.R. 5656 was inserted into Rep. Porter’s H.R. 4577, “Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001” (introduced June 1, 2000) which included


 * SECTION 1. (a) The provisions of the following bills of the 106th Congress are hereby enacted into law. (1) H.R. 5656, as introduced on December 14, 2000

President Bill Clinton signed H.R. 4577 into law December 21, 2000 as Public Law No: 106-554.

Also on December 15, 2000, U.S. Rep. Joe Knollenberg (R-MI) introduced H.R. 5668, the “Saccharin Warning Elimination via Environmental Testing Employing Science and Technology Act”, nicknamed the “SWEETEST act”. It was “Referred to the House Committee on Commerce” the same day. H.R. 5668 subsequently died in committee.

So the thing was actually nicknamed the "SWEETEST act", not the "Sweetness act", and it died anyway. The texts of H.R. 5656 and H.R. 5668 have the same effect but are not identical. If one searches for "sweetness act", only this article and plagiarism of it appear, along with non sequiturs. Searching for "sweetest act" in the public record, one finds it died in committee. H.R. 5656 did the work, by way of H.R. 4577. Rt3368 (talk) 07:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Should the sentence on aspartame be removed?
The article says saccharin "may trigger the release of insulin... but this has not been confirmed in controlled studies. This is similar for aspartame..." Should that last sentence be removed? This new study shows no effect: Agence Nationale de Sécurité Sanitaire. Évaluations des bénéfices et risques nutritionels des édulcorants intenses. January 2015. https://www.anses.fr/sites/default/files/documents/NUT2011sa0161Ra.pdf And in reporting on that French study and the large recent European study of aspartame, the medical site http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/839455 reports, "the vast majority of studies show no effects of sweeteners on insulin or on blood glucose levels. In addition, in observational studies, sweeteners do not appear to increase the risk for diabetes." Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 15:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Should the glucose intolerance sentence be removed?
The main article footnotes a 2014 paper, Artificial sweeteners induce glucose intolerance by altering the gut microbiota, in the journal Nature for this claim, "large amounts of saccharin (corresponding to 4 l of sweetened soft drinks per day [BE: is that a number?] ) have been shown to lead to significantly increased glucose intolerance..." Nature has been taken to task for that 2014 paper, as a quote in the competing journal Science indicates, "I cannot believe the journal [Nature] allowed that title.” http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2014/09/artificial-sweeteners-may-contribute-diabetes-controversial-study-finds And Nature itself published a rather scathing rebuttal to its own paper, at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v514/n7521/full/nature13793.html#comment-64447 So should that glucose intolerance statement in the article be removed, or should reference to the contrary information be added? Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Not Digested???
The article states that "saccharin is believed to be an important discovery, especially for diabetics, as it goes directly through the human digestive system without being digested." This is an extremely misleading and false statement.

Saccharin is removed from the body by the kidneys then excreted in urine. For the kidneys to filter out saccharin, saccharin must be in the blood. For saccharin to be in the blood, it must be digested. Whether or not saccharin is broken down into other components (metabolized) is a different story. The body does not METABOLIZE saccharin. (It DOES, however, DIGEST it.) Saccharin enters the blood stream exactly as it was ingested, then the kidneys filter the saccharin, exactly as it was ingested, out of the blood and excrete it in urine, once again, exactly as ingested. If you want to play mad scientist, consume some saccharin mixed with plain water. About 30 minutes later, urinate into a cup and take a little sip. It will taste sweet. (Do this in the evening because in the morning your urine tastes exactly like you expect it to: it tastes like poison.) Rainydaytreat (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that the statement is incorrect as written. Saccharin appears to be rapidly absorbed (not "digested" as you say, though) into the bloodstream and then excreted mostly unchanged.  The point of the statement, that saccharin is safe for diabetics, is correct though. I have modified the article accordingly and added a reference.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Yes, "rapidly absorbed" is much better (and more accurate) than "digested". I appreciate your response. Rainydaytreat (talk) 20:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Artificial "Sweetener"?
How can a neutral source get away with advertising for Big Corp by calling Saccharin a "sweetener," and reverting edits that refer to its actual taste? Can you provide a source proving that saccharin is sweet? No. No, you can't. Because it's not, and anyone who says otherwise either doesn't have a tongue or is a liar. Saccharin is bitter. Any Wikipedia editor who reverts it is in the pocket of Sweet'n Low, and is intellectually dishonest. Case closed. These are objective facts, and not my opinion.68.42.32.128 (talk) 04:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * content in wikipedia is based on reliable sources )see [{WP:RS]]). Please read the sources in the article supporting the statements about sweetness.  If you have reliable sources saying otherwise, please present them.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:51, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * So, there's a "reliable" source that says that saccharin is sweet? Oh, right. I forgot. Content isn't based on reliable sources at all. This entire article reads like an advertisement for Sweet N'Low. Care to revise your statement?

Furthermore, "Please read an article that contradicts what your tongue says" is the opposite of reliable.68.42.32.128 (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

You know what's funny is that you require a reliable source that says saccharine ISN'T sweet when everyone with a tongue knows it, but when someone request a citation or source for a claim that it IS sweet, you sweep that request for evidence under the rug. But, Wikipedia is only based on reliable sources and not just propaganda. Sure. I used to think Wikipedia was unreliable because anyone could edit it. Turns out I was wrong. Wikipedia is unreliable because a fascist few control its contents.68.42.32.128 (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * bring a reliable source for your claims already. This is Wikipedia 101 stuff. Jytdog (talk) 18:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, is it? And would the Oxford Medical Journal be considered a reliable source? I happen to have an article from them published in 2001 on the bitterness of saccharin, but I don't think I'm gonna share it with you. Find it yourself. BTW, I noticed you never found out which article I vandalised eight years ago.68.42.32.128 (talk) 18:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

"Relatedly, saccharose is an obsolete name for sucrose (table sugar)." ????
1) since when? 2) like where? (is this the case when some local habit in the USA is thought to be the directive for the rest of the world? see adrenaline, for example. You can't replace the use of the word adrenaline with epinephrine in europe, ever, because it would not make any sense. Is it only a matter of time when someone will state that the phrase "makes my blood boil" has been obsoleted and you should say "the saturaded vapour pressure of my hemolymph has reached or exceeded the pressure of the external atmosphere"...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.64.19.60 (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)