Jump to content

Talk:Acesulfame potassium

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sugar Alcohol Similiar?

[edit]

Would this compound be similar to sugar alcohols in which it has a low impact on blood sugar like sucralose like splenda? I notice this is in many different types of food and drink, so I would appreciate any answers on this. --Cyberman 21:26, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

All of the "non-nutritive" sweeteners (saccharine, aspartame, sucralose, acesulfame, cyclamate, etc...) are many times sweeter than sugar, and so are used in tiny quantities that do not significantly alter blood chemistry.
The sugar alcohols are somewhat of a special case, because they are no sweeter than sugar (most are slightly less sweet than sugar) and so they are used in similar quantities as sugar. However, unlike sugar, the sugar alcohols are metabolized by means that do not produce blood glucose, and so are useful to diabetics.
So the answer to your question is yes, "artificial" sweeteners and sugar alcohols are alike in that neither elevates blood glucose, but for rather different reasons. Shimmin 19:05, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Actually, sugar-alcohols (unlike aspartame [Equal], acesulfame potassium [Sweet'N Low], and sucralose [Splenda]) are caloric... They have a lower glycemic index than sucrose (table sugar), but are 'not' calorie free, nor can they be completely subtracted from carbs... See this article for more info about "net carbs" and the diferences between various sugar alcohols... --Wulf 07:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not only are the glycmeic indices lower, but sugar alcohols are not completely digested, such that each gram consumed does not equate to a gram digested. A decent rule of thumb for sugar alcohols is to divide by 2, although this probably underestimates their contribution somewhat because of the popularity of highly caloric malitols and sorbitol. I cannot find any evidence that artificial sweeteners based off carbohydrates increase blood plasma glucose levels at all or contribute more than an extremely marginal number of calories. I am fairly certain that, as a petroleum derivative, saccharine is not digested at all, and I would expect neither are cyclamates or glycerin. Studies indicate polydextrose also is not digested at all. Eebster the Great (talk) 02:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a dipeptide, aspartame is just as metabolizable and has just as many calories as any protein (4 kcal/gram) but is used in such small amounts that the caloric contribution is negligible. 96.35.172.222 (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kraft Foods and sodium ferulate

[edit]

Is there any proof of this? I can't find any. Link?

Yep -- It's patent 5,336,513. Jason 18:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

trident

[edit]

I'm pretty sure Trident has switched to Xylitol. But perhaps it's just in their regular stick gum.

Most gums have little Xylitol, but hype it for its tooth decay prevention properties. Experts have said the amount of xylitol in most gums is much lower than what is suggested for tooth decay prevention. Gums and candies that contain sugar alcohols like xylitol often contain artificial sweeteners like acesulfame potassium and sucralose, too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.133.103.221 (talk) 02:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

=

[edit]

Why does this page say that Acesulfame Potassium is 100-200 times sweeter than sugar and half as sweet as aspartame whereas the aspartame page states that aspartame is only 160 times as sweet as sugar?

=

[edit]

Why is acesulfame k never mentioned anywhere on food product labels except in the ingredients section? There also seems to be no mention of acesulfame k anywhere in the popular media. Unlike other artificial sweeteners, such as saccarine, marketers seem to have sneaked acesulfame k into all sorts of food products, even into many so-called "health foods," without promoting the sweetener's presence on the promotional sections of the label. Since there are doubts about acesulfame k's claimed safety, one gets the idea that the public is serving as guinea pigs in lieu of exhaustive, pre-marketing safety testing.

Worse is that most products that contain acesulfame K prominently declare that they are "sweetened with Splenda," capitalizing on Splenda's benign image, while lowering production costs. However, members of the public are not serving as guinea pigs: they will quietly suffer under whatever hidden effects acesulfame K has, and be treated for various idiopathic diseases like cancer. The long term disadvatages of this sweetener (which likely emerge only in older non-productive people) are probably less important to the FDA than the immediate benefit of reduced cost per unit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.76.76.25 (talk) 18:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is absurd. Not only is there almost no legitimate evidence of acesulfame K causing any health defects in anything (and exactly zero studies performed on humans), the amount of acesulfame K is almost always less than the amount of aspartame or sorbitol. Since acesulfame K is also less sweet than either, it does not greatly reduce production costs; rather, it offsets somewhat the aftertastes of the other sweeteners and lengthens shelf-lives somewhat since its sweetness does not decay as quickly as aspartame's or sorbitol's. While it may be true that aspartame, saccharin, and especially cyclamates have an inordinate amount of attention compared to acesulfame K, this is on the part of the FDA, not those damn, scheming health food corporations. But regardless, look, this isn't nicotine or tar people are putting in your diet soda; it's a sweetener the extent of whose "health concerns" seems to be the harmless release of insulin in lab rats and a disputed and apocryphal "citation needed" WP claim that it was linked to tumors in lab rats fed the equivalent of hundreds of cans of diet soda daily and denied by other similar studies. Hell, sugar water also causes cancer in lab rats; what's the difference? The whole debate is overblown. Eebster the Great (talk) 02:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I forgot the best part. Blends of acesulfame K use up to 40% less total sweetener than individual sweeteners like sorbitol and aspartame. So it is literally decreasing any purported carcinogenic properties of the food. Eebster the Great (talk) 02:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sweetness profiles are not all the same. Acesulfame K has a quicker, more intense onset and higher peak sweetness, but a quicker decline. Aspartame and sucralose sweeten well and long but not so intensely. A blend of the two, such as in a soft drink, provides both the quick sweetness "hit" from the ace k and the staying power of the aspartame and/or sucralose. 96.35.172.222 (talk) 21:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Structure

[edit]

Since acesulfame potassium is the potassium salt of acesulfame, shouldn't the structure be shown as a potassium cation and a large organic anion, rather than with a K-N covalent bond, as the article currently does? Compare [1], for example. Chuck 20:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Objection addressed, new structure uploaded. --Shaddack 01:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't the name be Potassium Acesulfame, i.e. cation first? The name appears in other media backwards as well, but I don't understand why.KrJnX (talk) 10:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't a concession for the layperson using the encyclopedia? It seems like it. It must appear so in the ingredient list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.132.162 (talk) 09:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Low potassium diet

[edit]

What is the potassium amount per serving in sugar free Jello - can this sweetener be used in a low potassium diet as for kidney failure? Herta Dalthorp,Nov 28th 2005.

I don't know, but you really aren't supposed to ask questions that are unrelated to the actual article itself here... Instead, that would be a good question to ask at Yahoo! Answers (http://answers.yahoo.com). --Wulf 07:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Logically (since acesulfame is so much more massive than potassium), and according to this reference: http://ific.org/publications/brochures/acekbroch.cfm, acesulfame potassium contains very little potassium; apparently just 10 mg per "packet", although I don't know how big the packets referred to are. I cannot imagine 10 mg K having any impact on, well, anything, but obviously WP is still not the best source to consult. Eebster the Great (talk) 02:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fatuous reference to sweetener industry approval

[edit]

Hardly an unbiased source of information, I'd think, re the reference at the very end of the article. Is that an advertisement injection?

Starting materials of manufacture affect safety?

[edit]

I don't understand the point of this sentence:

IFIC glosses over the manufacture of acesulfame potassium, stating it is made from acetoacetic acid, while ignoring its other reactants, possibly sulfuric acid and ammonia.

What does this have to do with anything? It reminds me of Splenda's retarded slogan, "It's made from sugar so it tastes like sugar.". Puh-leez. —Keenan Pepper 23:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there could very well be impurities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.132.162 (talk) 09:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Health Issues

[edit]

Acesufame potassium is suspected as cause of allergic reactions in some people. It is as active ingredient in many enriched waters and mixes for water like Crystal Light, Vita Rain (sold under the Kirkland Brand from Costco) and some Sobe drinks. It can trigger reactions which can include hives (Urticaria) or other allergic reactions. There have been few clinical trials on humans to date, but lab testing on animals have shown some problems including tumors to the lungs.

[Acesulfame potassium]http://ific.org/publications/brochures/acekbroch.cfm is not metabolized or stored in the body. After it is consumed, it is quickly absorbed by the body and then rapidly excreted unchanged.

--64.122.164.5 (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Geoff Williams[reply]

Whould anyone please kindly provide the following information here....

[edit]

The specification of the chemical in the Chinese standard of Q/62170131-X.4 - 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.78.208.107 (talk) 10:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On what bases, are those specifications set ???

[edit]

Are there any published scientific reports or relative references attached to those specifications in the following?

http://www.codexalimentarius.net/gsfaonline/additives/details.html?d-3586470-o=2&id=104&d-3586470-s=5&print=true —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.78.208.107 (talk) 12:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acesulfame is a different chemical than the one of this topic....

[edit]

--222.67.205.17 (talk) 09:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 8

[edit]

Reference 8 is not in proper form. There is no way to identify this source. I propose to delete the sentence it supports unless the reference can be fixed. 96.35.172.222 (talk) 21:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source was easily identified by dropping the title into a search engine. Upon editing the reference, more than sufficient identifying information was present, but the wrong template was in use.Novangelis (talk) 03:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation?

[edit]

I've been searching the information super highway for this for abt 10 mins and havent found it in useable form. That would exclude the cryptic International Phonetic Standard or whatever. 24.0.113.90 (talk) 11:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind: ay-see-SUHL-faym 24.0.113.90 (talk) 11:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If they want it to be pronounced ay-see-SUHL-faym then it should be spelled ayseesulfaym or something consistent with the pronunciation. Given the spelling Acesulfame it should be pronounced a-ses-ul-fame. Sam Tomato (talk) 06:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesis or supplement?

[edit]

I have reverted the addition of a reference (see below) which does not discuss acesulfame (although it is mentioned once, it was nowhere a topic of discussion) as synthesis. The existing reference was a letter written in response to the added source, however the article text had existed without the supplemental reference which offers no content specific content which could be classified as a criticism of acesulfame. I have deleted it (part of the WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle) and await additional opinions. There has be some discussion on my talk page.

Added reference: Soffritti, M.; Belpoggi, F.; Esposti, D. D.; Lambertini, L.; Tibaldi, E.; Rigano, A. (2006). "First Experimental Demonstration of the Multipotential Carcinogenic Effects of Aspartame Administered in the Feed to Sprague-Dawley Rats" (pdf). Environmental Health Perspectives. 114 (3): 379–385. doi:10.1289/ehp.8711. PMC 1392232.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Letter: Karstadt, M. L. (2006). "Testing Needed for Acesulfame Potassium, an Artificial Sweetener" (pdf). Environmental Health Perspectives. 114 (9): A516. doi:10.1289/ehp.114-a516a. PMC 1570055. PMID 16966071. (also includes already cited letter by the journal article's author)

not signed by: Novangelis


Well, obviously ref Karstadt does not "criticize acesulfame" but "criticizes the NTP methodology" of a shorter test on transgenic mice vs. the full length study by Soffritti. (cited above, in his study of aspartame) This NTP short test with transgenic mice has found no hints of carcinogenicity (of aspartame!), while the full length results of Soffritti found carcinogenic potential (in aspartame!) So Karstadt finds concerns supported for insufficient sensitivity of the NTP method from this comparison. Consequently submitted a request for further testing of acesulfame with a full length 2 year test. Suffritti responded to this. The full length study of Suffritti (even if on a different substance, namely aspartame!), which turned out to be the more sensitive method has been cited by Karstadt in comparison to the NTP transgenic mice "short test". The whole discussion sofar is about the NTP test method, not acesulfame, but Karstadt proposes to use the long test as by Soffritti on acesulfame, because it is more sensitive. I have included Soffritti as supplemental ref to see what Karstadt is talking about.(also named as supplemental reading to Karstadt by pubmed central, if you follow the pmc link of ref Karstadt.) 70.137.130.42 (talk) 06:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery.

[edit]

I find the anecdote about the accidental discovery of Ace-K suspicious, mainly because it is identical to the purported discovery of Aspartame. Also, these sorts of stories of scientific serendipity are usually apocryphal. In other words, too finger-licking-good to be true.

From Acesulfame potassium page: "After accidentally dipping his fingers into the chemicals that he was working with, Clauss licked them to pick up a piece of paper." From Aspartame page: "[Schlatter] accidentally discovered its sweet taste when he licked his finger, which had become contaminated with aspartame, to lift up a piece of paper."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.241.190 (talk) 02:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The history of artificial sweetener discovery is littered with fairly well-documented, not apocryphal, anecdotes of serendipity. The nature of the compounds lends themselves to fortuitous accidents. That said, I agree that this is too similar. I'll look into it.Novangelis (talk) 03:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to dig deeper, but it looks like it is true[2]. Also, it was a slightly different compound and acesulfame was developed from that.Novangelis (talk) 03:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify what is being said here, the link Novagelis provides shows that the anecdote about licking of a piece of paper is actually associated with the discovery of Aspartame. Cshay (talk) 09:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd like to know what they were researching. The structure is similar to a highly-modified barbituate in not-entirely-superficial ways; was it anesthetics research? --John Moser (talk) 16:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carcinogenicity in male mice

[edit]

The text reads: "However, a similar study conducted with p53 haploinsufficient mice showed signs of carcinogenicity in males but not females.[13]"

Here is Reference 13: [13] National Toxicology Program (2005). "Toxicity Studies of Acesulfame Potassium (CAS No. 55589-62-3) in FVB/N-TgN(v-Ha-ras)Led (Tg.AC) Hemizygous Mice and Carcinogenicity Studies of Acesulfame Potassium in B6.129-Trp53tm1Brd (N5) Haploinsufficient Mice (Feed Studies)" (PDF). Genetically Modified Model Report (National Institutes of Health) 2005 (NTP GMM-2): 1–113. PMID 18784762. NIH Publication No. 06-4460.

The study concludes that: “Under the conditions of this 9-month feed study, there was no evidence of carcinogenic activity of acesulfame potassium in male or female p53 haploinsufficient mice exposed to 0.3%, 1%, or 3%.”, i.e., it does not state that it “showed signs of carcinogenicity in males”. I suggest the corresponding sentence should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlos-alberto-teixeira (talk • contribs) 15:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Acesulfame potassium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Acesulfame potassium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Acetoacetamide

[edit]

To note, I removed the link from the text "acetoacetamide" that linked to wikipedia:Acetamide; these are two separate chemical compounds. Unfortunately there is not yet a page for the compound referenced here (acetoacetamide.) morsontologica (talk) 02:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Acesulfame_potassium&oldid=1197912778"