The end of the sweetener era is approaching, according to food chemist Udo Pollmer. The soap opera of "effortless weight loss" is likely to be cancelled soon. The rearguard action has begun on the websites of the health profiteers. Alternatively, they are lashing out against sugar. But even the prayer wheels of "conscious nutrition without sugar" are gradually wearing out.

by Udo Pollmer, April/May 2025

The promise of sweeteners has infested society: The land of home savers has become a nation of calorie savers. The websites of nutritionists, health insurance companies and the medical profession still claim that the most valuable property of sweet chemicals is that they are calorie-free. And what does this...

...do for the eager savers? Does the community now have a higher lean meat content?

As early as 1986, the belief that sweeteners help with obesity was shaken. The reason for this was a study of almost 80,000 mature American women. Women who consciously consumed sweeteners had gained more weight after a year than those who preferred sugar. (1) In 2011, a US study with over 10,000 children and adolescents confirmed the result. (2) The fatal effect therefore affects all age groups, whether male or female.

Animal experiments confirm this experience. (3) Rats are significantly fatter after just a few weeks if they are given light yoghurt with sweetener. Sweetened yoghurt keeps them slimmer. (4) Because the effect is not only pronounced, but also well-known, all natural and nature-identical sweeteners have been authorised in the EU for decades as appetite stimulants for all fattening animals - and not, as is falsely claimed, only saccharin for weaning piglets. (5) In feed law, sweeteners are classified as flavourings, but in food law they are a separate category. Their use is worthwhile because it saves feed costs. In agricultural research, this is all a truism.

Sweeteners in agriculture and the environment

What actually happens to the sweeteners in pigs' and cattle's feed? Do they contaminate meat and milk? The potential residues in schnitzel and quark should be negligible. However, manure is heavily contaminated. (6-8) Although it usually breaks down quickly in the field, the plants readily absorb it. (9) Many customers don't mind, they appreciate a slight sweetness in the vegetables.

Sweeteners have an antibiotic effect. (10) This is why sewage treatment plants are breeding grounds and hubs for antibiotic resistance. (11) The risk here is not so much from animal feed, but above all from consumers who are watching their "slim line". Saccharin, acesulfame, sucralose and cyclamate are not broken down in the sewage treatment plant and accumulate in water bodies. (12-14) As a result, sweeteners have become the most important pollutants in rivers, lakes and groundwater. (15)

Some sweeteners are also used as pesticides, often under a different name so as not to attract attention. In vegetable and rice cultivation, saccharin is applied against weeds and plant disease pathogens - but now it is called Probenazol. (16-18) Others are suitable as insecticides. (19)

Why were sweeteners authorised in the first place if they make you fatter instead of slimmer? Quite simply: according to the rules of classical toxicology, an increase in weight - especially in growing animals - is considered proof of "harmlessness". Delayed growth or even weight loss indicated poisoning. However, if you want to show that your test animals lose weight with sweeteners, you give them such high doses that they refuse to eat.

All sorts of substitutes are mixed into the consumers' food, even cucumbers and pickled herrings swim in sweetener marinades. Despite this, the consumption of sugar in any form remains relatively constant. For decades, manufacturers have been doing everything in their power to replace expensive sugar with cheaper sweeteners out of self-interest. The pleasing result for the suppliers: Extra sales can be achieved with light products because they are consumed in addition to and not instead of sugar. Two diet yoghurts replace one real one.

The sweet flavour is a friendly hint to the body of nutritious calories. If the energy perceived on the tongue fails to materialise, the appetite demands what has been promised all the more fiercely. If this were not the case, a few sweeteners would suffice and humanity would magically become slim - and healthy. But it won't.

Man - a sugar factory

The reasons for the failure have now been deciphered in detail. A brief digression into physiology is helpful here. Many people believe that the sugar in the blood always comes from food. But this is incorrect. Everyone produces plenty of glucose themselves. How else would shepherds and hunters get the energy they need for their muscles and brains? Their food contains hardly any starch or sugar! The starting materials are amino acids, which are first converted into glucose with the help of fats and then into glycogen and stored, preferably in the muscles and liver.

Our daily glucose requirement at rest, i.e. without muscle activity, is around 200 grams. (20) Most of this is used by the brain and nerves, the rest by the erythrocytes. (Red blood cells do not have mitochondria, which provide energy; they are therefore also dependent on the supply of glucose). Glucose is synthesised even when we are slightly hungry, especially in the liver and renal cortex. They produce up to 200 grams per day. (20) For example, 400 grams of household sugar contains 200 grams of glucose. This would require us to eat a whole kilo of milk chocolate every day - i.e. 10 bars.

Of course, our body also obtains glucose from food, especially from starch. In this case, the supply of glucose from the liver must be reduced or even stopped so that the sugar in the blood does not go into overdrive. Most people have the necessary counter-regulation, e.g. the pre-absorptive insulin reflex - I will explain this in a moment.

But before that, there is another factor that provides plenty of sugar: anger, grief and despair. The body then produces extra sugar, which it also stores as glycogen. In the event of danger or fear, it uses this to provide the necessary energy in the form of "blood sugar" to ward off danger. (20) The effect occurs reliably, completely independently of the diet. At the same time, stress makes us ill. As some people turn to chocolate and cake in their despair to comfort themselves, perfidious contemporaries warn against sugar in food. But this has nothing to do with sweets.

Like sweeteners, sugar also triggers the previously mentioned pre-absorptive insulin reflex, the cephalic phase response. (21) When sweetness is perceived on the tongue, a brief insulin release occurs within two minutes. (22) This insulin spike in the blood signals to the liver, which continuously provides blood sugar, not to release any more glucose into the bloodstream for the time being. (23) Finally, the glucose from the food flows into the circulation.

However, the pre-absorptive insulin reflex supplies far too little insulin to metabolise a large load of glucose from a meal. In this case, it is merely a signalling device to prevent an overshooting of blood sugar caused by pasta, flaked muesli or potatoes.

As sweeteners do not provide glucose, the sugar level in the blood gradually drops due to constant consumption. Then we feel hungry, our body switches to energy saving and (24). As the digestive tract has the same sweet receptors as the mouth, insulin levels rise more sharply without this being used up as in the case of a meal rich in sugar or starch.

It is therefore not unexpected that studies have shown that children lick up more sugar after a diet diet to finally get the promised calories (25). The pre-absorptive reflex also explains why sweeteners from completely different chemical substance classes have the same effect.

Not everyone's cup of tea: the insulin reflex

Not all people have this regulation. Where people live in barren regions such as steppes, mountains or in eternal ice, they naturally lack it. This group of people generally does not value sweets and prefers to eat sausage without bread. These genetics also exist here, not only due to the genetic legacy of passing armies, but also because large areas of land in Europe are only suitable for grazing, but not for farming.

Therefore, the reflex is not sufficient as an explanation. In addition, weight gains were observed even without additional consumption. In a mouse study that compared sugar with the sweeteners saccharin, cyclamate, aspartame and acesulfame K, the "consumption of sweeteners resulted in significantly increased body weight; however, the food intake did not change." (26) No different in rats (27). Basically, this is nothing new, as the pronounced fattening effect without extra food has long been extensively documented in livestock. (28)

The supposed paradox of "excess weight without extra calories" has a simple physical cause: the body restricts the release of heat through the skin by reducing blood circulation. Result: cold hands, cold feet, cold stomach. Rodents lower their internal body temperature when they eat sweetener. This saves them the calories they need to feed their subcutaneous fatty tissue (29). If the readjustment of the temperature is not sufficient, the appetite is stimulated.

People's despair over their weight gain further intensifies the effect: it causes the formation of cortisol and thus belly fat. This is also shown by a prospective study of older people in Texas: "In a striking dose-response relationship, increasing diet soda intake was associated with escalating abdominal obesity". (30; 31). Aspartame, for example, is considered a chemical stressor that increases cortisol levels and causes insulin resistance via the NMDA receptor. (32)

Sugar is more honest: "Sucrose, but not aspartame, consumption associated with reduced stress-induced cortisol", according to a Californian study with women. (33; 34) Sugar reduces stress, it calms, it comforts. (35) This is old hat, That's an old story and not just for children. It even acts as a potent painkiller in infants. (36) Today, thanks to nutritional propaganda, some people get stressed just thinking about sweets. 
Conclusion: The popular idea that sweeteners help to "cut down on sugar" and thus lose weight has proven to be a nasty deception. How many patients have been fooled by their doctors? Now they have to put up with the accusation that they are too fat and should exercise restraint when eating and avoid sugar. Cynical?

No rule without exception

While many people gain weight under stress, there is also a type of person who loses weight under stress: They are the lean ones, the leptosomes with little subcutaneous fatty tissue. Because they are poorly thermally insulated, they would suffer damage if their body reduced the blood flow to the skin. The thin layer of insulation cannot reliably protect the internal organs from the cold. A drop in the internal temperature by just a few degrees would mean death. That is why heat energy and calories are needed, whatever the cost. However, this is not supplied by the scarce fatty tissue on the stomach, but by muscles, organs, bones, etc. This is why it is relatively easy for slim people to lose weight.

This is why slim people can continue to lose weight with sweeteners and diets. They lose weight under stress. However, the health price they pay for this is higher than for fat people, who simply put on weight through stress, i.e. improve their insulation.

Counselling-related diabetes

There used to be a wide range of diabetic products, sweet but without sugar, without sucrose, but with fructose, sorbitol or sweetener. Diabetic foods are now banned. And why? "So as not to lull diabetics into a false sense of security", according to the AOK. (37) This is just short of the truth: the diabetic diet was abandoned after it was shown to be without any clinical benefit. In 2010, a diabetologist stated in his association's magazine: "We have known for some time that diabetic foods do not bring any health benefits to our patients". (38) You have to let that melt in your mouth: Doctors declare that they have long known that the sugar avoidance they preach for diabetic products is of no benefit.

What should a diabetic eat now? The AOK is not at a loss for tips: it knows that products with sweeteners "do not provide any calories and therefore do not increase blood sugar levels in people with diabetes." (39) Great! So beneficial after all? We'd better check it out before this AOK advice turns out to be yet another dud.

The Ärzte-Zeitung, a German medical newspaper for doctors, on the other hand, states: "Sweeteners increase the risk of diabetes". (40) The reason for this was a small double-blind study on young women and men. With sweetener pills, the blood sugar level rose more strongly from day to day after meals, but not with placebo. Baffled? Haven't people been told that sweeteners help to control blood sugar?

Diet sodas, diet yoghurts and diet powders may make it more difficult to control blood sugar levels. This is also confirmed by a study conducted by the Weizmann Institute in Rehovot, Israel. (41) They were also convinced that sweeteners would be particularly beneficial for patients with diabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity.

The researchers initially tested saccharin, aspartame and sucralose on mice. It didn't take long for the animals in the three sweetener groups to develop a pronounced glucose intolerance. However, the control group with sugar did not. This was followed by experiments with hundreds of test subjects: The more sweetener, the worse the values were in the glucose tolerance test, as were the liver values; in addition, the fat on the stomach increased significantly. (41)

This was nothing new. Years earlier, the Health Professionals Follow Up Study had shown that regular consumption of sweetened soft drinks doubled the risk of diabetes. The claim that diabetes is caused by sugar-sweetened soft drinks, because in this study the risk was also increased with sugar, albeit only slightly, is probably due to manipulation during the survey or statistical massaging. Although sugar-sweetener combination drinks came onto the market early on in the USA, this section is missing. Apparently, the combination drinks were already categorised as "sugar" at that time. (42)

As mentioned, the main reasons for diabetes are stress, fear and despair. (43) In the past, eating and drinking kept body and soul together. As long as people ate and drank with relish, peace, joy and pancakes prevailed. Today, the recommendations are designed to spoil people's favourite foods and force them to swallow what they dislike. This also drives the metabolism into diabetes. Today it is a typical counselling-related disease. But it has paid off, generating high sales.

Misunderstood duty of confidentiality

The Weizmann Institute in Rehovot had already warned in 2014: The "increase in NAS consumption coincides with the dramatic increase in the obesity and diabetes epidemics. Our findings suggest that NAS may have directly contributed to enhancing the exact epidemic that they themselves were intended to fight." (41)

Heat lightning 

In 2017, a review by Michelle Pearlman from the University of Texas confirmed the Israelis:

"Although artificial sweeteners were developed as a sugar substitute to help reduce insulin resistance and obesity, data in both animal models and humans suggest that the effects of artificial sweeteners may contribute to metabolic syndrome and the obesity epidemic. Artificial sweeteners appear to change the host microbiome, lead to decreased satiety, and alter glucose homeostasis, and are associated with increased caloric consumption and weight gain. Artificial sweeteners are marketed as a healthy alternative to sugar and as a tool for weight loss. Data however suggests that the intended effects do not correlate with what is seen in clinical practice." (44)

But many don't want to admit it. After all, such embarrassing insights jeopardise the business and self-esteem of the health profiteers. In their helplessness, they have even researched whether the all-purpose weapon "sport" can be used to iron out the bad effects of sweeteners. (45) Result: Of course sport does not protect against sweeteners. Who would have thought that?

If necessary, it is argued that adverse effects have only been observed at completely excessive doses and only in rats. Let's let that pass as a helpless white lie. In a recent Israeli study involving 120 test subjects, low doses of saccharin and sucralose interfered with blood sugar control within 14 days. (46) The longer the use of sweeteners, the greater the chance of becoming diabetic, according to an Indian study (47). In 2025, a review from a Cypriot university hospital notes in passing: "Most studies have found an association between the consumption of sweeteners and the risk of diabetes." (48)

The medical profession and the circles of nutritionists have known this for a long time, but have preferred to keep it to themselves. Apparently, a special form of medical confidentiality applies here. The loudest shot was the French NutriNet-Santé study: after almost 10 years observing 100,000 participants, the risk of diabetes had increased significantly with regular sweetener consumption: 30% for sucralose, 60% for aspartame and 70% for acesulfame. (49)

The experts' rearguard action is in full swing. Last year, Diabetologie-online recommended that diabetics should only consume sweeteners in moderation. Their reasoning: "Too sweet is just as counterproductive for health as eating very salty or very fatty foods. This is why has recently changed its recommendation on sweeteners. Nutrition experts and the World Health Organisation (WHO) recommend using them in moderation." (50)

Don't wake sleeping dogs! Don't mention the dangers, rather distract: "A very high consumption of energy-free sweeteners increases the threshold for sweet flavours. With the risk that the craving for sweets increases," says Diabetologie-online. And further: "Nevertheless, they are still a sensible sugar alternative for people with diabetes. This is because they can be used to save carbohydrates that affect blood sugar levels and therefore also energy." (50)

In order get themselves out of the firing line, diabetologists are upholding a new enemy image: they are now fighting like Don Quixote on a high horse against the innate craving for sweets. They are behaving like the church, which once took on the sex drive. When a cold shower in the evening didn't help, parents who were worried about their children's salvation followed the advice of priests and doctors: they tied their hands together on the duvet. There are probably still some in the older generation whose childhood was overshadowed by this education in morality. It's always the same old story: don't let yourselves be seduced, whether by sex or sweets. Hands off!

It may make sense to advise a manifest diabetic, but not a healthy person, to consume less sweets. But why then do many experts recommend fruit as an alternative, as a diabetic food, so to speak? It contains a sugary solution of fructose and glucose. Sugar is sugar, sweetness is sweetness. Don't ripe grapes also increase the "threshold" for sweetness?

Beating about the bush 2.0 

The German Diabetes Aid organisation unwaveringly proclaims "that fructose as a natural component of fruit is also suitable for people with diabetes." But watch out! In "processed foods" it promotes obesity, fatty liver and gout! "That's why it's best to eat fructose in the form of fresh fruit" and not juices or smoothies. (51) The Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, the BfR, also advises avoiding fructose "in industrially produced foods." We prefer not to ask for artisan confectionery. According to the BfR, diabetics should rather ensure that their diet is rich in vitamins "by eating plenty of fruit, vegetables and salad every day". (52)

What's with this stupid beating about the bush? Either the substance is problematic above a certain dose and causes gout and whatnot, or it's not. "Fructose, once a highly praised glucose substitute for diabetics, is now considered more of a metabolism-damaging villain with diabetes-promoting potential," according to the Medical Tribune. On paper, fructose now promotes diabetes in the same way as glucose. And what does this mean? "Fruit and juice are definitely allowed". (53)

Fructose: the demonised saviour

According to German Diabetes Aid, fructose requires less insulin than conventional sugar to get from the blood into the body's cells. Fructose is absorbed by the small intestine and metabolised in the liver without insulin. Like glucose, it is used to produce energy. "In contrast to glucose, fructose has a very low glycaemic index (GI), which means that the blood sugar level rises only slightly when it is consumed." This is why fructose used to be advertised as a sweetener for diabetes. Because fructose tasted sweeter than beet sugar, less substance was needed to achieve the same sweetness. (54) As fructose improved blood sugar and insulin control, doctors advised their diabetics to take fructose for decades. Why did it fall out of favour?

This is not an isolated case; experts generally not only recommend "lots of fruit", but also warn of the dangers of fructose. For example: "In large quantities, fructose quickly leads to abdominal pain and flatulence" (54), as well as diarrhea. The highest levels of fructose are found in honey. It doesn't give anyone a stomach ache. With apples, which do indeed contain fructose, the diarrhea comes from sorbitol. Apart from that, the only time it can cause diarrhea is if fructose is consumed pure by the spoonful without its companion glucose. (55)

However, fructose is not only to blame for obesity, diabetes and lipometabolic disorders, but is also the cause of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, or NAFLD for short. (56, 57) A lot of fruit, i.e. a diet with a lot of fructose, provides a remedy. The problem of diabetology lies between the ears.

The suspected cause of fatty liver not fructose, as our diabetologists believe, but sweeteners: Greek paediatricians cite "the development of insulin resistance, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), gastrointestinal symptoms, and certain types of cancer" as side effects. (58) Or endocrinologists from Shanghai: "Excessive consumption of artificially sweetened was associated with an increased risk of incident hospitalised NAFLD." (59) Saccharin, aspartame and sucralose in particular target the liver. (60-64) Or: "Observational studies overwhelmingly show an association between NNS consumption and features of the metabolic syndrome, and this includes NAFLD when analyses are not adjusted for obesity." (65)

Some people will now jump up and shout, there you go, that was obvious: obesity did it! They have already fallen for one of the oldest statistical tricks. Since sweeteners cause obesity in the first place, the subsequent liver damage can be calculated away. This means that all the damage caused by sweeteners can be statistically attributed to "obesity". Conversely, this means that for all malaises for which "obesity" is supposedly to blame, the metabolic interference of the sweet chemicals should first be examined.

The Maastricht study with its 2,800 participants shows what the current state of knowledge actually is: "In conclusion, higher intake of glucose, not fructose and sucrose, was associated with higher insulin sensitivity, independent of dietary fibre. No convincing evidence was found for associations of dietary glucose, fructose, and sucrose with ß-cell function in this middle-aged population." (66) In other words, a bankrupt explanation for diabetology, which prefers to poke around for sugar in food instead of understanding it.

Sweeteners taken to heart

In their concern for health, many people consult Dr Google. Thanks to artificial intelligence, he knows that "too much sugar" can not only damage the liver, but also "the heart", e.g. through inflammation, high blood pressure and lipometabolic disorders. The "nervous system of the heart" also suffers. The German Heart Foundation adds: "This leads to rhythm disturbances. Pain is perceived less. Or a 'silent heart attack' occurs". (67) And that is that.

They cunningly try to create the impression that eating sugar first causes obesity and then heart attacks. This line of argument is very cunning. In reality, it is the stress hormones that are at the centre of chronic diseases. Those who take their anger to heart cause high blood sugar. Quite independently of sugar consumption. But patients, googlers and the naive can be fooled by this game of "change the tree".

Our body makes no distinction between the stress caused by a biting street dog or the stress provoked by a neat naive clueless nutritionist with its fear of calories. Danger is danger. This perfidious scam not only costs nerves, but also makes the victim reach for the sweetener. This takes the victim out of the frying pan and into the fire. This is also suggested by the large and ambitious French NutriNet-Santé study. It analysed sweetener consumption in unusual detail and found an increase in cerebrovascular diseases such as stroke. With aspartame, the risk increased by just under 20 per cent, with sucralose by 30 per cent and with acesulfame by 40 per cent. (68)

According to a joint study from China, Sweden and the USA, aspartame promotes arteriosclerosis. According to biochemical studies, the authors once again cite the massive release of insulin by the sweetener as the cause. (69) Anyone who now thinks that this must also be the case with sugar has not understood the principle: Sugar provides glucose and insulin can fulfil its tasks. The person remains healthy. 
2025 Brazilian researchers warn after reviewing the relevant studies: "We included twelve prospective cohorts comprising 1,224,560 patients. Analyses were conducted on patient groups with data adjusted for co-founding, such as dietary factors and comorbidities. One or more daily dose of artificially sweetened beverages was significantly associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and stroke." (70) Bingo!

Nothing new under the sun

From the specialist journal Stroke (2017): 

"Several large observational studies including the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study, the Framingham Heart Study, and the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis reported a positive association between diet soda consumption and increased risks of the metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes. Results from the Northern Manhattan Study further indicated that diet soda consumption was associated with an increased risk of stroke, myocardial infarction and vascular death, and a study based on combined data from the Nurses' Health Study the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study reported higher incidence of hemorrhagic strokes in subjects with high regular low-calorie soda intake." (71)

Upper room in energy-saving mode

Sweetener users like to believe that their decision to give up sugar has been carefully considered. They forget that their upper brain is also fuelled by glucose - and never by sweetener.

Sweeteners could never be authorised as a medicine because, in addition to diabetes and strokes, they also promote Alzheimer's disease, as confirmed by the Framingham Offspring Cohort study of almost 3,000 test subjects. The risk of dementia almost tripled. "After adjustments for age, sex, education (...), caloric intake, diet quality, physical activity and smoking, higher recent and higher cumulative intake of artificially-sweetened soft drinks were associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke, all-cause dementia, and Alzheimer disease dementia." (72)

In young rats, stevia, acesulfame and saccharin, according to US neuroscientists, "produced hippocampal-dependent memory dysfunction later in life. ... Regular consumption of LCS within ADI limits during a critical period of postnatal development has broad and lasting behavioural and physiological consequences." (73) In adult rats, sweeteners also reduced learning performance and interfered with brain chemistry. (74)

Google lets the AI do the talking: "Too much sugar in the diet can increase the risk of Alzheimer's disease. This is because sugar can disrupt glucose metabolism in the brain. This can lead to deposits in the blood vessels and inflammation in the brain." Everyone should know that sucrose cannot even pass through the intestinal wall into the bloodstream, but is only absorbed after being broken down into glucose and fructose. The next hurdle for a stray household sugar would be the blood-brain barrier. But in medicine today, nothing is impossible.

As is so often the case, the increased insulin level is not caused by eating sugar, but by sweeteners and stress. Stress also makes the blood-brain barrier permeable to risky substances - e.g. sweeteners. (75,76) A good opportunity to make the public believe that eating sweets out of frustration makes you stupid. But there is a huge difference between sweeteners causing damage to the body and drinking coffee with sugar reducing stress levels. And thus helps the patient.

In a prospective long-term study, mental decline in older French people ran parallel to the consumption of sweeteners. (77) And what happens with sugar limes? "Sugar-sweetened beverages were not associated with stroke or dementia." According to the aforementioned Offspring cohort of the Framingham study. (72)

The experts who attribute a causal function to "industrial" sugar in the development of dementia are acting as if the "fuel" it contains for their upper brain, the "energy supplier" glucose, is a dangerous substance for the brain. In the fight against sugar, doctors have got carried away with hyping sweet juices as protection for the brain instead. One particularly amusing example comes from England. There, a consortium of Chinese and Dutch researchers found that, unlike sugar and sweeteners, "a moderate intake of natural juices was associated with a lower risk of dementia." (78)

And how much juice does a Brit have to drink for that? The dose that reduced the risk of dementia by almost a quarter was ">0-1 unit/day compared to none". So a thimbleful is enough. A whole unit would be a 250ml glass. So how much brain protection do two glasses have to provide? According to the study, none at all, zero. And one more sip even increases the risk. (78) Such statistical capers, as valuable as a small dog turd, are the trademark of nutritionists. In comparison, being a toilet attendant is not a disreputable but a serious hygiene profession. The ladies are allowed to clean up the results of their digestive problems with "healthy food".

A misleading study with a good 4,000 US Americans fits in with this: "Daily fruit juice intake was associated with lower total brain volume, hippocampal volume, and poorer episodic memory." (79) The health section of the German newspaper Frankfurter Rundschau newspaper advises eating plenty of fruit to prevent dementia. (80) So what is true? Fruit sugar is pretty worthless for the brain. So the current theory that dementia and heart problems are actually a consequence of too much fructose, i.e. too much fruit and juice, comes just in time. (81) Conclusion: If the hen crows on her dung, the recommendation changes or it stays as it is.

Latrine slogans

The intestine would prefer to chew the sweeteners out. This is because they promote the spread of resistant germs. (82) Sweetener users are known to have a significantly different, unfavourable intestinal flora, as is typical for many fat people. Unfortunately, sweeteners have an antibiotic effect. Saccharin, for example, is a sulphonamide. Sulphonamides are important antibiotics, hence the effect on the intestinal flora. The incorrect colonisation in the intestine in turn contributes to insulin resistance. (41, 83)

Not only saccharin and aspartame but also sucralose, acesulfame K and stevia have an antibiotic effect. (84-86) The intestinal flora of mice and humans is damaged by regular consumption of diet sodas in the usual doses. The colonisation defects go beyond what is to be feared in a therapy with antibiotics (41). It is therefore not surprising that sweeteners play a causal role in intestinal diseases, especially irritable bowel syndrome (87-89). It is quite astonishing: while antibiotics are heavily criticised because of the risk of resistance, many people consume antibiotics every day just because they taste sweet.

A further experiment from Rehovot has hit the bottom of the barrel: After the sweeteners not only damaged the intestinal flora of humans, but also of mice, the researchers gave their animals therapeutically used antibiotics (ciprofloxacin and metronidazole) to kill off the dodgy sweetener intestinal flora. It worked: these antibiotics even protected the rodents from developing sweetener diabetes. (41)

Anyone who is afraid of antibiotics because they trigger resistance and damage the gut should bear in mind that the difference between antibiotic therapy and sweetener consumption is that antibiotics are usually discontinued after a week, whereas sweeteners are consumed daily for years and decades. Only a few days after a short-term therapy, the first sensitive germs of the intestinal flora emerge from their hiding places into which they have retreated. (90-92) Therefore, the damage here is minor in comparison to sweeteners, which secrete the intestine daily until it straddles. (93-95)

A representative of the sweetener industry, a qualified nutritionist, tries to brand everything as a "misconception" on the Internet. The truth is that sweeteners only make up a small part of our diet. For this reason alone, an influence on the microbiome is rather unlikely. (96) Why haven't the pharmacists already realised this? The smaller the pills, the fewer side effects? In addition, not all sweeteners would reach the intestine; many are broken down into their components beforehand or excreted via the kidneys. (96) That's right! So they can't cause "intestinal damage" in the bladder. They're really clever, the ladies from the trade.

Follow the money

Are there no counter-studies? There are. After all, the industry makes enough money to be able to afford them. According to an analysis by Australian researchers, studies that were not financed by the sweetener industry are quite sobering. (97) If the money comes from the usual suspects, the sweetener usually works wonders. While 23 out of 24 reviews that were not sponsored by the industry found unfavourable results for sweeteners, three out of four reviews were positive for the industry when there were financial links. In addition, there was a great tendency to conceal such dependencies in the studies. This was the case for almost every second review.

Since so-called "scientific studies" have become an important marketing tool for health and nutrition issues, the floodgates have been opened to fraud. After all, it's not just about the sweetener market, but also about the sales of the manufacturers who add sweeteners and advertise them. Followed by the slimming industry, which has a vital interest in people getting fatter. And then there is the pharmaceutical industry: sweeteners are a cash cow for the sale of their diabetes products, a driving force for sales.

Outraged by the endless deceptions of sweetener researchers, Susan Schiffman, a veteran flavour researcher, protested: "Over the past two decades, ... safety concerns about ... sweeteners have been described, including increased risk of metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes, excessive weight gain, cardiovascular disease, ... and disruption of the gut microbiome" (98).

Betrayal of mothers and children

What consequences might it have if pregnant or breastfeeding women reach for sweeteners, e.g. because they are afraid that their figure will suffer after giving birth? The Sweeteners Association ducks behind the authorities: "The safety of sweeteners is already being investigated for all groups of people, including pregnant women and breastfeeding mothers, as part of the authorisation process. All sweeteners authorised in the European Union (...) are harmless to health. Neither the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) nor the German Nutrition Society (DGE) indicate any particular risks from sweetener consumption during pregnancy." (99) So much for the industry.

Unfortunately, some sweeteners can thwart the desire to have children. In one of the first reports on Stevia we read: "Paraguayan Mato Grosso in Indian tribes use Stevia rebaudiana as a contraceptive. Women daily drink a decoction in water from dry, powdered leaves and stems." (100) In male animals, Stevia lowered testosterone levels, and in adolescents it slowed the development of the testicles. (101)

It's not just stevia that can hinder the desire to have children. According to a study from Taipei involving over 800 women, aspartame was also "associated with an increased risk of infertility in younger women". The sweetener interferes with the hormonal cycle: "Frequent consumption of diet drinks was associated with oocyte dysmorphism, decreased embryo quality, and an adverse effect on pregnancy rate." Doctors therefore advise women who wish to have children to reduce their aspartame consumption. (102)

Indian endocrinologists were able to reproduce these results in mice: "Non-nutritive artificial sweeteners including aspartame negatively impact the function of ovaries and feedback mechanism of reproductive hormones by affecting the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis." (103) An experiment with rats confirmed that aspartame and stevia "have a lasting and intergenerational effect on gut microbiota, microbial metabolites and host health." (104)

The detrimental effects continue during pregnancy, as sweeteners reach the amniotic fluid (105, 106). In rats, aspartame reduced the number of fetuses. The birth weight of the rat babies that still saw the light of day was lower. (107) And in humans? According to a Danish study of almost 60,000 pregnant women, the number of premature births increased. (108)

The consequences of a sugar reduction strategy:

"In an effort to reduce sugar consumption to prevent diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular diseases, 'sugar-free' or 'no added sugar' products that substitute sugar with non-nutritive sweeteners (NNSs) (eg, ... Stevia) have become increasingly popular. The use of these products during pregnancy has also increased, with approximately 30% of pregnant women reporting intentional NNS consumption." (109) This is the view of gynaecologists and biochemists at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

And further: "In clinical studies with non-pregnant participants and animal models, NNSs were shown to alter gut hormonal secretion, glucose absorption, appetite, kidney function, in vitro insulin secretion, adipogenesis, and microbiome dysbiosis of gut bacteria. In pregnant animal models, NNS consumption has been associated with altered sweet taste preference later in life and metabolic dysregulations in the offspring (eg, elevated body mass index, increased risk of obesity, microbiome dysbiosis, and abnormal liver function tests). (109)

"Despite the accumulating evidence, no specific guidelines for NNS consumption are available for pregnant women. Furthermore, there are limited clinical studies on the effects of NNS consumption during pregnancy and postpartum and long-term outcomes in the offspring." (109)

Acesulfame already imprints the foetus with a "sweet" taste in the amniotic fluid. After birth, the substance passes into the mother's milk and can be detected in the baby's blood. (110) The same applies to sucralose, with some exceptions. As an organochlorine chemical, it accumulates in fatty tissue like DDT (111). From there it is excreted in breast milk. In addition to acesulfame and sucralose, it also contains aspartame, cyclamate and saccharin (112-114). In breastfed children, this changes the perception of flavour and stimulates the desire for sweets (105). Not even the fact that children born to mothers who eat sweeteners are twice as often overweight at the age of one year as those born to mothers who eat sugar (115,116) brings the counsellors to their senses.

In response to the question: "Are sweeteners still allowed when you are pregnant?", "Swissmom", an advice website for pregnant women, children and mothers, answers: "Sweeteners are generally safe in normal household quantities, even during pregnancy. ... Due to their high sweetening power and the fact that they are calorie-free, sweeteners offer a decisive advantage over household sugar. ... In addition, sweeteners have been shown to have no effect on appetite, (they) do not alter insulin or blood sugar levels after consumption ... ." (117)

The fact that the editorial team is made up of "experts", ranging from a Dr of gynecology to a "health teacher" and a "paternity counsellor", does not make the nonsense any less dangerous. Hopefully the ladies will be rewarded for their editorial advertising with donations to lure mothers seeking help into the sweetener trap.

Girls are the main victims of this propaganda. According to a Taiwanese study involving 880 girls, the consumption of acesulfame K correlates with pubertas praecox, i.e. early puberty. A test on rats confirmed the observations in humans, where the same hormonal changes were produced, which emphasises the causal role of the sweetener. (118)

Prematurity increases slowly but steadily; doctors speak of idiopathic pubertas praecox. In most cases, the cause remains hidden from them. (119) Sweeteners are nowhere to be found in their world view, as are soya products, another cause. (120-122) The medical profession prefers to concentrate on more lucrative issues such as adrenal tumours. Paediatricians and educationalists wonder why more and more girls are already reaching puberty at the age of 7.

The connection with their own advice in favour of a "calorie-conscious" or vegetarian diet does not yet seem to have dawned on many. Instead, they have "overweight" children in mind as the cause of prematurity. (123) They ignore the fact that children of sweetener mothers are significantly heavier or fatter. They also ignore the fact that fatter children are admonished from all sides to slim down their bodies by counting calories, i.e. with sweeteners. This is the doctor switching on the turbo.

It stinks to high heaven

As the sweetener market thrives on demonising its natural role model, sugar, nutrition researchers use the combination of sugar and sweeteners to blame the disadvantages of sweeteners on sugar. In their studies, they subsume all sugary soft drinks without mentioning the fact that most of them today contain very little sugar thanks to the addition of sweeteners. In some cases, "soft drinks" are summarised across the board, without any differentiation between sweeteners. (124)

As the bad effects of sweeteners cannot be ignored, they declare with a worried expression that sweet drinks make people fat and ill. How perfidious! From this, doctors, the media and mothers conclude that they should ban all sugar for children and are up in arms against anything containing sugar. Such fraudulent studies feed the ever new accusations against sugar, with the intention of strengthening the sweetener users in their actions. In older studies with soft drinks that were sweetened only with sugar at the time, the unpleasant effects did not materialise. (2)

In the European EPIC study with almost half a million participants, the 50 authors tried to blame the increased mortality of sweetener consumers on sugar. The surveys were designed in such a way that sweetener-sweetened drinks had to be included among the sugar-sweetened drinks. But even the retouched results show a clear increase in mortality with sweeteners as opposed to sugar. In the abstract, of course, the authors claim otherwise. (125)

None of this is new. The Women's Health Initiative Study with over 90,000 women had already shown that dietary restrictions are associated with increased mortality (126). The "Leisure World Cohort Study" had previously come to the same conclusion (127). That was almost 20 years ago.

Everyone in the industry, whether manufacturer, nutritionist or therapist knows, or should know, that sweeteners shorten life. So they warn against sugar, because it promotes their careers and ensures the applause of the business world. It's no longer the dance for the golden cattle, but for the biggest pile.

Secrets of success

Initially, sweetened lemonades failed on the market. Only when suppliers realised that not only the sweetness but also the viscosity had to be right did they add "thickeners" such as locust bean gum until the flow properties, the mouthfeel, corresponded to a sugar solution. Only then could diet soft drinks be sold successfully.

However, as this cannot prevent the body from realising the deception and simply no longer "tasting" the soda, today only part of the sugar is replaced by sweetener. This makes it easier to trick the appetite.
It should be noted that biological reactions differ from person to person, e.g. the pre-absorptive insulin reflex, so that the desired results can be achieved by selecting the right test subjects. It is no mean feat to fool the palate, let alone the mind, but the body is not so easily fooled.

Erythritol & xylitol - an alternative?

Now that sweetened sodas are turning out to be a cup of hemlock in instalments, the distraught are looking for new "alternatives". The most obvious one would be natural sugar. But this is reflexively regarded as the godsend at the table. Fortunately, the AOK health insurance organisation has some cheap advice: "Xylitol, erythritol and stevia are particularly recommended for people with diabetes and obesity. Erythritol and stevia are even calorie-free. All three substitutes have the disadvantage that they are produced artificially and are questionable from an ecological point of view. It is therefore important to always favour products with an organic label." (128)

Instead of looking for chemicals with an organic label, it would be wiser to consider their consequences: Erythritol, for example, promotes thrombosis, heart attacks and strokes, according to two studies from 2023 in which the Charité Heart Centre was involved (129, 130). One year later, the result was confirmed: "Ingestion of a typical quantity of the non-nutritive sweetener erythritol, but not glucose, enhances platelet reactivity in healthy volunteers". (131)

This was soon followed by an evaluation of the well-known Finnish ATBC study (1985-1993): "Our study suggests that elevated serum erythritol is associated with increased risk of overall, cardiovascular disease, and cancer mortality." (132) Mortality was a whopping 50 per cent higher.

The renewed evaluations of the Nurses Health Study and the Womens Lifestyle Validation Study are no different: "Our findings from the two independent study populations of women without prior CHD suggest that endogenous and exogenous erythritol levels are related to unfavourable cardiometabolic risk factor status." (133)

The situation is not much better with xylitol: "Higher levels of the sweetener xylitol in the blood", according to the German Heart Centre, "are associated with a significantly increased risk of serious heart disease and strokes." (134; 135) This result has since been confirmed by a Texan study of 4,000 patients. (136) Naturally, studies that do not criticise sugar but its supposed alternatives are met with opposition. The argument that correlations do not constitute a cause is also not lacking.

However, clinical intervention studies are also available here: "All studies provide complementary and aligned evidence to support a causal relationship among physiological levels of xylitol, heightened platelet reactivity, and heightened thrombosis potential in vivo." According to cardiologist Marco Witkowski from the Charité in Berlin. (129)

While the doctors are still arguing about the interpretation of their findings, the next bankruptcy is already looming: erythritol and xylitol also have insecticidal and antibiotic effects. (137-143) Nobody cares. The fear of sugar has long since replaced the fear of eternal damnation. If the faithful continue to search for an "alternative", then the clergy should give their flock a new Lord's Prayer: "Lead us not into temptation with saturated fat, refined salt and pure natural sugar, but deliver us from evil fast food.

What were those days when you were allowed to fill your stomach to your heart's content? To preserve one's salvation, it was enough to lay one's paws chastely on the duvet at night.

References

1. Stellman SD, Garfinkel L: Artificial sweetener use and one-year weight change among women. Preventive Medicine 1986; 15: 195 – 202
2. O'Neil CE et al: Association of candy consumption with body weight measures, other health risk factors for cardiovascular disease, and diet quality in US children and adolescents: NHANES 1999-2004. Food & Nutrition Research 2011; 55: e5794
3. Bian X et al: The artificial sweetener acesulfame potassium affects the gut microbiome and body weight gain in CD-1 mice. PLoS One 2017; 12: e0178426
4. Swithers SE et al: General and persistent effects of high-intensity sweeteners on body weight gain and caloric compensation in rats. Behavioral Neuroscience 2009; 123: 772–780
5. European Union: Register of Feed Additives pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 Annex I: List of additives. Luxemburg 2020
6. Ma L et al: Mass loading of typical artificial sweeteners in a pig farm and their dissipation and uptake by plants in neighboring farmland. Science of the Total Environment 2017; 605-606: 735-744
7. Buerge IJ et al: Saccharin and other artificial sweeteners in soils: estimated inputs from agriculture and households, degradation, and leaching to groundwater. Environmental Science Technology 2011; 45: 615-621
8. Yu Z et al: Non-caloric artificial sweeteners modulate conjugative transfer of multi-drug resistance plasmid in the gut microbiota. Gut Microbes 2023; 15: e2157698
9. Li D et al: Accumulation, translocation and transformation of artificial sweeteners in plants: A critical review. Environmental Pollution 2025; 366: e125517
10. Yu Z et al: Nonnutritive sweeteners can promote the dissemination of antibiotic resistance through conjugative gene transfer. The ISME Journal 2021; 15: 2117–2130
11. Xu J et al: Aspartame affects methane yield and enhances transmission of antibiotic resistance genes during anaerobic digestion of sludge. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2025; 483: e136715
12. Scheurer M et al: Analysis and occurrence of seven artificial sweeteners in German waste water and surface water and in soil aquifer treatment (SAT). Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry 2009; 6: 1585-1594
13. Arbeláez P et al: Determination of high-intensity sweeteners in river water and wastewater by so-lid-phase extraction and liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Journal of Chromatography A 2015; 1393: 106-114
14. Buerge IJ, Poiger T: Acesulfam: ein künstlicher Süßstoff als Abwasserindikator. Nachrichten aus der Chemie 2011; 59: 1084-1086
15. McCance W et al: Contaminants of Emerging Concern as novel groundwater tracers for delineating wastewater impacts in urban and peri-urban areas. Water Research 2018; 146: 118-133
16. Koganezawa H et al: Effects of probenazole and saccharin on symptom appearance of Tobacco mosaic virus in tobacco. Annals of the Phytopathological Society of Japan 1998; 64: 80–84
17. Abdel-Kader MM et al: Biological and chemical resistance inducers approach for controlling foliar diseases of some vegetables under protected cultivation system. Journal of Plant Pathology & Microbiology 2013; 4: e9
18. Srivastava P et al: Saccharin-induced systemic acquired resistance against rust (Phakopsora pachyrhizi) infection in soybean: Effects on growth and development. Crop Protection 2011; 30: 726-732
19. Lee SH et al: The impact of artificial sweeteners on insects. Journal of Economic Entomology 2021; 114: 1-13
20. Löffler G, Petrides PE: Biochemie und Pathobiochemie. Springer, Berlin 1990
21. Pullicin AJ et al: Cephalic phase insulin release: A review of its mechanistic basis and variability in humans. Physiology & Behavior 2021: 239: e113514
22. Glendinning JI et al: Individual differences in cephalic-phase insulin response are stable over time and predict glucose tolerance in mice. Physiology and Behavior 2024; 276: e114476
23. Ahrén B, Holst JJ: The cephalic insulin response to meal ingestion in humans is dependent on both cholinergic and noncholinergic mechanisms and is important for postprandial glycemia. Diabetes 2001; 50: 1030 – 1038
24. Swithers SE et al: Experience with the high-intensity sweetener saccharin impairs glucose homeostasis and GLP-1 release in rats. Behavioural Brain Research 2012; 233: 1 - 14
25. Sylvetsky AC et al: Consumption of low-calorie sweetened beverages is associated with higher total energy and sugar intake among children, NHANES 2011-2016. Pediatric Obesity 2019; 14: e12535
26. Polyak E et al: Effects of artificial sweeteners on body weight, food and drink intake. Acta Physiologica Hungarica 2010; 97: 401 - 407
27. Feijó FM et al: Saccharin and aspartame, compared with sucrose, induce greater weight gain in adult Wistar rats, at similar total caloric intake levels. Appetite 2013; 60: 203 - 207
28. Shearer J, Swithers SE: Artificial sweeteners and metabolic dysregulation: Lessons learned from agriculture and the laboratory. Reviews in Endocrine & Metabolic Disorders 2016; 17: 179-186
29. Swithers SE, Davidson TL: A role for sweet taste: calorie predictive relations on energy regulation by rats. Behavioral Neuroscience 2008; 122: 161 – 175
30. Fowler SPG et al: Diet soda is associated with long-term increases in waist circumference in a bi-ethnic cohort of older adults: The San Antonio Longitudinal Study of Aging. Journal of the American Geriatric Society 2015; 63: 708 – 715
31. Yu B et al: Associations of artificially sweetened beverages, sugar-sweetened beverages, and pure fruit/vegetable juice with visceral adipose tissue mass. Diabetes & Metabolic Syndrome: Clinical Research and Reviews 2023; 17: e102871
32. Choudhary AK: Aspartame: should individuals with Type II Diabetes be taking it? Current Diabetes Reviews 2018: 14: 350-362
33. Tryon MS et al: Excessive sugar consumption may be a difficult habit to break: a view from the brain and body. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism 2015; 100: 2239-2247
34. Choudhary AB, Lee YY: The debate over neurotransmitter interaction in aspartame usage. Journal of Clinical Neuroscience 2018; 56: 7-15
35. Ulrich-Lai YM: Self-medication with sucrose. Behavioral Sciences 2016; 9: 78-83
36. Stevens B et al: Sucrose for analgesia in newborn infants undergoing painful procedures. Review. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2016; 7: CD001069
37. Anon: Süßigkeiten für Diabetiker: Wie Sie bewusst genießen können. AOK.de vom 11. April 2022
38. Admin: Diabetikerlebensmittel verboten. diabetes-news.de/nachrichten/ 2010
39. Anon: Zuckerfreie Süßigkeiten: Wie gut ist Süßes ohne Zucker? AOK.de vom 24. Juli 2023
40. Anon (vsc): Mit Süßstoffen steigt das Diabetesrisiko. aerztezeitung.de vom 30. Nov. 2017
41. Suez J et al: Artificial sweeteners induce glucose intolerance by altering the gut microbiota. Nature 2014; 514: 181 – 186
42. De Koning L et al: Sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened beverage consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes in men. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2011; 93: 1321-1327
43. Sharma K et al: Stress-induced diabetes: a review. Cureus 2022; 14: e29142
44. Pearlman M et al: The association between artificial sweeteners and obesity. Current Gastroenterology Reports 2017; 19: e64
45. Pacheco L et al: Sugar-sweetened or artificially sweetened beverage consumption, physical activity and risk of type 2 diabetes in US adults. Diabetologia 2025; epub ahead of print
46. Suez J et al: Personalized microbiome-driven effects of nonnutritive sweeteners on human glucose tolerance. Cell 2022; 185: 3307–3328
47. Mathur K et al: Effect of artificial sweeteners on insulin resistance among type-2 diabetes mellitus patients. Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care 2020; 9: 69 – 71
48. Okoro FO, Markus V: Artificial sweeteners and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A review of current developments and future research directions. Journal of Diabetes and its Complications 2025; 39: e108954
49. Debras C et al: Artificial sweeteners and risk of type 2 diabetes in the prospective NutriNet-Santé Cohort. Diabetes Care 2023; 46: 1681–1690
50. Metternich von Wolff K: Süßstoff in der Diabetesberatung. diabetologie-online.de vom 08. März 2024
51. Deutsche Diabetes-Hilfe: Fructose. Diabetesde.org vom März 2022
52. BfR: Erhöhte Aufnahme von Fruktose ist für Diabetiker nicht empfehlenswert. Stellungnahme Nr. 41/2009 vom 6. März 2009
53. Kreutzkamp B: Fruktose aus Früchten bessert Blutzucker und Insulinkontrolle. Medical-tribune.de vom 31. Jan. 2019
54. Steinbach M, Felchner C: Fructose: Vor- und Nachteile der Fruchtsüße. netDoktor vom 14. Juli 2021
55. Laughlin MR: Normal roles for dietary fructose in carbohydrate metabolism. Nutrients 2014; 6: 3117-3129
56. Otayf AY et al: Review: Fructose, the sweet culprit behind Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease and Type 2 diabetes. Current Diabetes Reviews 2025; 4. Feb. epub ahead of print
57. Helsley RN et al: Tissue specific fructose metabolism in obesity and diabetes. Current Diabetes Reports 2020; 20: e64
58. Kossiva L et al: Chronic use of artificial sweeteners: pros and cons. Nutrients 2024; 16: e3162 
59. Sun Y et al: Associations of sugar-sweetened beverages, artificially sweetened beverages, and pure fruit juice with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: cross-sectional and longitudinal study. Endocrine Practice 2023; 29: 735-742
60. Lebda MA et al: Long-term soft drink and aspartame intake induces hepatic damage via dysregulation of adipocytokines and alteration of the lipid profile and antioxidant status. Nutrition Research 2017; 41: 47-55
61. Wu HT et al: Sucralose, a non-nutritive artificial sweetener exacerbates high fat diet-induced hepatic steatosis through taste receptor type 1 member 3. Frontiers in Nutrition 2022; 9: e823723
62. Shi Z et al: Impaired intestinal Akkermansia muciniphila and aryl hydrocarbon receptor ligands contribute to nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in mice. mSystems 2021; 6: e00985-20
63. Finamor IA et al: Long-term aspartame administration leads to fibrosis, inflammasome activation, and gluconeogenesis impairment in the liver of mice. Biology 2021; 10: e82
64. Dhurandhar D et al: A histological assessment of effects of sucralose on liver of albino rats. Morphologie 2018; 102: 197-204
65. Green CH, Syn WK: Non-nutritive sweeteners and their association with the metabolic syndrome and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: a review of the literature. European Journal of Nutrition 2019; 58: 1785-1800
66. den Biggelaar LJCJ et al: Associations of dietary glucose, fructose, and sucrose with ß-cell function, insulin sensitivity, and type 2 diabetes in the Maastricht Study. Nutrients 2017; 9: e380 
67. Deutsche Herzstiftung: Wie zu viel Zucker im Blut das Herz schädigt Herzstiftung. HERZ Heute 2019 (3): 18-19
68. Debras C et al: Artificial sweeteners and risk of cardiovascular diseases: results from the prospective NutriNet-Santé cohort. BMJ 2022; 378: e071204
69. Wu W et al: Sweetener Aspartame aggravates atherosclerosis through insulin-triggered inflammation. Cell Metabolism 2025; 37: 1–14
70. Queiroz I et al: High consumption of artificially sweetened beverages and associated risk of cardiovascular events: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Current Problems in Cardiology 2025; 50: e102837
71. Wersching H et al: Sugar- and artificially-sweetened beverages in relation to stroke and dementia – Are soft drinks hard on the brain? Stroke 2017; 48: 1129-1131
72. Pase MP et al: Sugar- and artificially sweetened beverages and the risks of incident stroke and dementia: a prospective cohort study. Stroke 2017; 48: 1139-1146
73. Tsan L et al: Early-life low-calorie sweetener consumption disrupts glucose regulation, sugar-motivated behavior, and memory function in rats. JCI Insight 2022; 7: e157714
74. Erbas O et al: Evaluation of long-term effects of artificial sweeteners on rat brain: a biochemical, behavioral, and histological study. Journal of Biochemical and Molecular Toxicology 2018; 32: e22053
75. Shi W et al: Breakdown of the blood-brain barrier in depressed mice induced by chronic unpredictable mild stress. Journal of Psychiatric Research 2024; 180: 138-146
76. Lindseth GN et al: Neurobehavioral effects of aspartame consumption. Research in Nursing & Health 2014; 37: 185–193
77. González-Domínguez R et al: Food and microbiota metabolites associate with cognitive decline in older subjects: a 12-year prospective study. Molecular Nutrition & Food Research 2021; 65: e2100606
78. Chen H et al: Sugary beverages and genetic risk in relation to brain structure and incident dementia: a prospective cohort study. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2023; 117: 672-680
79. Pase MP et al: Sugary beverage intake and preclinical Alzheimer’s disease in the community. Alzheimer’s & Dementia 2017; 13: 955–964
80. Braun J: Demenz vorbeugen: Zwei Früchte bieten einen besonders guten Schutz. Frankfurter Rundschau online vom 22. März 2025
81. Johnson RJ et al: Could Alzheimer’s disease be a maladaptation of an evolutionary survival pathway mediated by intracerebral fructose and uric acid metabolism? American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2023; 117: 455–466
82. Markus V: Artificial sweetener-induced dysbiosis and associated molecular signatures. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 2024; 735: e150798
83. Nettleton JE et al: Reshaping the gut microbiota: Impact of low calorie sweeteners and the link to insulin resistance? Physiology & Behavior 2016; 164 (Pt B): 488-493
84. Wang QP et al: Non-nutritive sweeteners possess a bacteriostatic effect and alter gut microbiota in mice. PLoS One 2018; 13: e0199080
85. Nettleton JE et al: Low-dose Stevia (rebaudioside a) consumption perturbs gut microbiota and the mesolimbic dopamine reward system. Nutrients 2019; 11: e1248
86. Yu Z, Guo J: Non-caloric artificial sweeteners exhibit antimicrobial activity against bacteria and promote bacterial evolution of antibiotic tolerance. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2022: 433: e128840
87. Qin X: May dysbiosis caused by dietary chemicals such as sucralose and saccharin be more detrimental to the gut and health than antibiotics? How? Inflammatory Bowel Diseases 2019; 25: e20
88. Clevers E et al: Coffee, alcohol, and artificial sweeteners have temporal associations with gastrointestinal symptoms. Digestive Diseases and Sciences 2024; 69: 2522-2529
89. Zhai Z et al: Acesulfame potassium triggers inflammatory bowel disease via the inhibition of focal adhesion pathway. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2024; 476: e134901
90 Wurm J et al: The effect of antibiotics on the intestinal microbiota in children - a systematic review. Frontiers in Allergy 2024; 5: e1458688
91. Palleja A et al: Recovery of gut microbiota of healthy adults following antibiotic exposure. Nature Microbiology 2018; 3: 1255-1265
92. Mikkelsen KH et al: Effect of antibiotics on gut microbiota, gut hormones and glucose metabolism. PLoS One 2015; 10: e014352
93. Palleja A et al: Recovery of gut microbiota of healthy adults following antibiotic exposure. Nature Microbiology 2018; 3: 1255-1265
94. Bhattarai SK et al: Commensal antimicrobial resistance mediates microbiome resilience to antibiotic disruption. Science Translational Medicine 2024; 16: eadi9711
95. Seelbinder B et al: Antibiotics create a shift from mutualism to competition in human gut communities with a longer-lasting impact on fungi than bacteria. Microbiome 2020; 8: e133
96. Anon/Roth A: Irrtum – Süßstoffe verändern die Darmflora. Süßstoff-Verband e.V., suessstoff-verband.info ohne Jahr
97 Mandrioli D et al: Relationship between research outcomes and risk of bias, study sponsorship, and author financial conflicts of interest in reviews of the effects of artificially sweetened beverages on weight outcomes: a systematic review of reviews. PLoS One 2016; 11: e0162198 
98. Schiffman SS, Nagle HT: Revisited: assessing the in vivo data on low/no-calorie sweeteners and the gut microbiota. Food & Chemical Toxicology 2019; 132: e110692
99. Süßstoff Verband e.V.: Sind Süßstoffe in der Schwangerschaft eine clevere Lösung? suessstoff-verband.info/ abgerufen am 5. April 2025
100. Planas GM, Kuc J: Contraceptive properties of Stevia rebaudiana. Science 1968; 162: 1007
101. Melis MS: Effects of chronic administration of Stevia rebaudiana on fertility in rats. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 1999; 167: 157-161
102. Chen YC et al: Aspartame consumption, mitochondrial disorder-induced impaired ovarian function, and infertility risk. International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2022; 23: e12740
103. Naik AQ et al: The impact of non-caloric artificial sweetener aspartame on female reproductive system in mice model. Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology 2023; 21: e73
104. Wang W et al: A metagenomics investigation of intergenerational effects of non-nutritive sweeteners on gut microbiome. Frontiers in Nutrition 2022; 8: e795848
105. Zhang GH et al: Effects of mother’s dietary exposure to acesulfame-K in pregnancy of lactation on the adult offspring sweet preference. Chemical Senses 2011; 36: 763-770
106. Leth-Moller M et al: Transplacental transport of artificial sweeteners. Nutrients 2023; 15: e2063
107. Chen YC et al: Aspartame intake during pregnancy induces placental dysfunction through impaired mitochondrial function and biogenesis modulation. Placenta 2024; 158: 285-292
108. Halldorsson TI et al. Intake of artificially sweetened soft drinks and risk of preterm delivery: a prospective cohort study in 59,334 Danish pregnant women. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2010; 92: 626 – 633
109. Palatnik A et al: Consumption of non-nutritive sweeteners during pregnancy. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2020; 223: 211-218
110. Sylvetsky AC et al: Intergenerational transmission of sucralose and acesulfame-potassium from mothers to their infants via human milk: a pharmacokinetic study. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2024; 120: 846-853
111. Bornemann V et al: Intestinal metabolism and bioaccumulation of sucralose in adipose tissue in the rat. Journal of Toxicology & Environmental Health A 2018; 81: 913-923
112. Sylvetsky AC et al: Nonnutritive sweeteners in breast milk. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Part A 2015; 78: 1029 – 1032
113. Stampe S et al:  Artificial sweeteners in breast milk: a clinical investigation with a kinetic perspective. Nutrients 2022; 14: e2635
114. Rother KI et al: Non nutritive sweeteners in breast milk: perspective on potential implications of recent findings. Archives of Toxicology 2015; 89: 2169-2171
115. Azad MB et al: Association between artificially sweetened beverage consumption during pregnancy and infant body mass index. JAMA Pediatrics 2016; 170: 662 - 670
116. Laforest-Lapointe I et al: Maternal consumption of artificially sweetened beverages during pregnancy is associated with infant gut microbiota and metabolic modifications and increased infant body mass index. Gut Microbes 2020; 13: e1857513
117. Anon: Sind Süssstoffe noch erlaubt, wenn man schwanger ist? Swissmom.ch, abgerufen am 25. März 2025
118. Wu HAT et al: Consumption of the nonnutritive sweetener acesulfame potassium increases central precocious puberty risk. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2024; 461: e132529
119. Knauer-Fischer S: Pubertas praecox: vorzeitige Pubertätsentwicklung. ATOSnews 2012; Nr. 19
120. Kim J et al: High serum isoflavone concentrations are associated with the risk of precocious puberty in Korean girls. Clinical Endocrinology 2011; 75: 831-835
121. Felıcio JS et al: Association of soy and exclusive breastfeeding with central precocious puberty: a case-control study. Frontiers in Endocrinology 2021; 12: e667029
122. Fortes EM et al: Ingestão Excessiva de Fitoestrógenos e Telarca Precoce: Relato de Caso com Possível Correlação. Arquivos Brasileiros de Endocrinologia e Metabologia 2007; 51: 500-503
123. Schlenger R: Pubertas praecox: Wann wie behandeln? Deutsche Apotheker Zeitung-Online vom 05. Juni 2024
124. Rivera-Paredez B et al: Cumulative soft drink consumption is associated with insulin resistance in Mexican adults. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2020; 112: 661-668
125. Mullee A et al: Association between soft drink consumption and mortality in 10 European countries. JAMA Internal Medicine 2019; 179: 1479-1490
126. Mossavar-Rahmani Y et al: Artificially sweetened beverages and stroke, coronary heart disease, and all cause mortality in the women’s health initiative. Stroke 2019; 50: 555 - 562
127. Paganini-Hill A et al: Non-alcoholic beverage and caffeine consumption and mortality: the Leisure World Cohort Study. Preventive Medicine 2007; 44: 305 – 310
128. Anon: Was ist der beste Zuckerersatz? AOK Gesundheitsmagazin Vom 15.05.2024 aok.de/pk/magazin/ernaehrung/lebensmittel/zuckerersatz-die-beliebtesten-suessungsmittel-im-check/ 
129. Witkowski M, Hazen SL: Erythritol and xylitol and cardiovascular disease risk: a growing concern. European Heart Journal 2024; ehae729 epub ahead of print
130. Witkowski M et al: The artificial sweetener erythritol and cardiovascular risk. Nature Medicine 2023; 29: 710-718
131. Witkowski M et al: Ingestion of the non-nutritive sweetener erythritol, but not glucose, enhances platelet reactivity and thrombosis potential in healthy volunteers. Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis and Vascular Biology 2024; 44: 2136-2141
132. Lim J et al: Serum erythritol and risk of overall and cause-specific mortality in a cohort of men. Nutrients 2024; 16: e3099
133. Heianza Y et al: Plasma levels of polyols erythritol, mannitol, and sorbitol and incident coronary heart disease among women. European Journal of Preventive Cardiology 2024 Sep 4:zwae288
134. Anon: Neue Studie: Der Süßstoff Xylit ist mit erhöhtem Risiko für Herzprobleme verbunden. Deutsches Herzzentrum der Charité 6. Juni 2024
135. Witkowski M et al: Xylitol is prothrombotic and associated with cardiovascular risk. European Heart Journal 2024; 45: S2439–2452
136. Abushamat LA et al: Erythritol, erythronate, and cardiovascular outcomes in older adults in the ARIC Study. JACC Advances 2025; 4: e101605
137. Lee SH et al: The impact of artificial sweeteners on insects. Journal of Economic Entomology 2021; 114: 1-13
138. de Dios R et al: Artificial sweeteners inhibit multidrug-resistant pathogen growth and potentiate antibiotic activity. EMBO Molecular Medicine 2023; 15: e16397
139. Burgess ER, King BH: insecticidal potential of two sugar alcohols to Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 2017; 110: 2252-2258
140. Lee JC et al: Erythritol sprays reduce Drosophila suzukii infestation without impacting honey bee visitation nor fruit quality. Pesticide Management Science 2023; 79: 4990-5002
141. Burgess ER, Geden CJ: Larvicidal potential of the polyol sweetener erythritol and xylitol in two flith fly species. Journal of Vector Ecology 2019; 44: 11-17
142. Cha DH et al: Insecticidal properties of erythritol on four tropical tephritid fruit flies, Zeugodacus cucurbitae, Ceratitis capitata, Bactrocera dorsalis, and B. latifrons (Diptera: Tephritidae). Insects 2023; 14: e472
143. Baudier KM et al: Erythritol, a non-nutritive sugar alcohol sweetener and the main component of Truvia®, is a palatable ingested insecticide. PLoS ONE 2014; 9: e98949

English Editor: Josef Hueber