The Popularity of Sugar Substitutes is Increasing, But Their Environmental Impact May Not Be So Positive

Share this @internewscast.com

The use of artificial sweeteners is prevalent throughout Australia, with daily consumption exceeding one tonne nationwide. This trend is driven by a shift among food producers towards sugar-free sodas and sweets.

However, recent findings highlight potential environmental repercussions, as these popular sugar substitutes accumulate in global waterways.

The study, found in the Journal of Hazardous Materials, was spearheaded by Dr. Xuan Li from the University of Technology Sydney.

Investigators explored the types and levels of artificial sweeteners within wastewater treatment facilities in 24 nations, alongside changes in their concentration and the efficiency of removal processes.

Results revealed that commonly used sugar replacements are not breaking down. Instead, they morph into ‘forever chemicals,’ similar to polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), possibly posing risks to wildlife and habitats.

PFAS are synthetic chemicals often found in items designed to resist water and adhere less. They are increasingly under scrutiny for their toxic and cancer-causing potential, adversely affecting both the environment and human health.

Why do sweeteners cause a problem?

Unlike natural sugars, artificial sweeteners are designed to resist digestion and not be fully absorbed by the human body. For the same reason, they don’t break down as easily in waterways or on the land, and can enter wastewater systems that aren’t equipped to deal with them through standard treatment processes.

“Whatever we are eating will eventually discharge into wastewater and become concentrated in wastewater treatment plants,” Li said.

“Our treatment facilities struggle to dismantle them effectively, resulting in direct discharge to nature. Over time, this leads to environmental build-up, eventually impacting aquatic life.”

A jar of individual packets of artificial sweetener.

Artificial sweeteners are not fully absorbed by the human body. Source: Getty / Juanmonino/iStockphoto

Li said that some fish may die early as a result, and that represented a potentially big problem in the ecosystem.

“The bottom line is anything changing the fish will eventually impact the upper food chain and impact other creatures. We have found algae can be impacted, and they all of a sudden bloom, and all of a sudden die, because of the build-up of artificial sweeteners.”

Were all sweeteners equally harmful?

No. One product scored worst when it came to its ability to decompose (or lack thereof) — sucralose, which is marketed as Splenda in supermarkets around the world. Acesulfame, also known as Ace K, was also harder to remove and was released into the wider environment.

Two other sweeteners, saccharin and cyclamate, were comparatively easy to remove from water, the study found. These four substitutes were found to be the most prevalent artificial sweeteners.

Other artificial sweeteners found in wastewater included neotame, stevia and neo hesperidin dihydrochalcone (NHDC).

What could the potential impact be?

Li says its impossible to know how long it will take for the build-up of these microtoxins to have a detrimental impact on humans — and to know how severe that impact could be.

She said that while there has been much focus on PFAS in recent years, artificial sweeteners have a similar “accumulation pathway” in our environment and in drinking water, affecting organisms.

Li said more research needs to happen to determine the impact of sweeteners on our planet, ecosystem and personal health. The study calls for ongoing monitoring, tighter regulations and improved treatment technologies to reduce the potential environmental risks artificial sweeteners pose.

In the meantime, Li said we each have a choice.

“As consumers ourselves, we can think twice when we are trying to purchase a product,” Li said.

“I know artificial sweeteners can sound very tempting if you’re trying to control your blood sugar level, your body weight. But the question is, do we really understand them well enough? If not, maybe the conventional sugary stuff will be a better solution.”