When was equal sweetener invented

That left only one artificial sweetener on the market: saccharin. In oncologists at the University of Wisconsin Medical School published the results of a clinical study showing a higher instance of bladder cancer among rats who consumed saccharin daily.

Large chemical companies—Monsanto, Sherwin-Williams, and Lakeway Chemicals—began assembling their own evidence to oppose prohibition. Soda companies expected a painful financial hit, as did makers of diet food. But they also knew the process could take years, as the FDA ordered new tests, analyzed the data, and—crucially—responded to public and political pressure.

By a saccharin ban looked likely. Marvin Eisenstadt, the president of the company, appeared on television and radio to argue his case. He denied the scientific validity of animal testing and declared access to saccharin a consumer right. He helped draft a two-page ad from the Calorie Control Council, the industry group he headed. Write or call your congressman today and let him know how you feel about a ban on saccharin.

In the week after the saccharin ban went into effect in , Congress received more than a million letters. Marvin Eisenstadt and other public relations—savvy producers had turned the saccharin debate into a PR operation, and the public had responded. The Delaney Clause, as the FDA interpreted it, required a ban on any known carcinogen in the food supply.

But the original legislation failed to account for the complexity of scientific data. What daily dosage of a chemical might be reasonable for testing toxicity? Did the elevated risk of cancer in rats translate to an elevated risk in humans? But in the absence of incontrovertible scientific evidence, Marvin Eisenstadt could frame the debate as average citizens versus an encroaching big government.

The FDA understood the weakness of the existing laws and breathed a sigh of relief when, a week after the ban, Senator Ted Kennedy of the Senate Subcommittee on Health and Scientific Research moved to forestall the ban. The Saccharin Study and Labeling Act passed that year, declaring that all saccharin products would carry a warning label.

It also imposed a two-year moratorium on any government action to remove saccharin from the market. More studies were needed, according to Congress. Those sales included longtime buyers stocking up in case of a ban, but the free publicity also brought in new customers. By , 44 million Americans used saccharin daily.

Consumers voted with their dollars. The high dosages of saccharin given to the rats were a poor analog for human consumption, as rat digestion works differently from that of humans.

The threat of a saccharin ban led producers to research alternatives. While saccharin— times sweeter than sugar—languished in the shadow of a potential ban, a new generation of artificial sweeteners flourished.

In aspartame, which is times sweeter than sugar, was discovered; in sucralose— times sweeter; and in neotame—7, to 13, times sweeter than sugar. Today, saccharin, once the undisputed king of artificial sweeteners, lags behind its newer counterparts, replaced by the next sweetest thing. From the beginning Americans have had mixed feelings about artificial sweetness. Saccharin originally appealed to frugal consumers. As Americans became more diet conscious, it became the no-calorie alternative to sugar.

Those weight watchers wanted sweetness without consequences and manufacturers obliged. But while eagerly embracing these improvements, many remain suspicious about chemicals in their food.

The organic-food movement revives a long-held suspicion about how our food reaches our dinner tables. It also evokes a suspicion of science, specifically the nightmare image of Frankenfood. That contradiction has played a major role in the history of artificial sweeteners. Cyclamate, introduced in , was banned in the United States in And aspartame, introduced in , was linked to a supposed increase in brain tumors.

In all three cases researchers later declared the products safe. But the debate over safety received much press attention, and suspicion about artificial sweeteners has seeped into the collective consciousness.

Some of these pages are well-intentioned, if often misinformed or simplistic. Others have less noble agendas. One example, thetruthaboutsplenda. And who is the unbiased party helping spread the truth about Splenda? There have been questions of safety. Cancer in lab animals. Reports that sugar substitutes actually encourage weight gain.

But the promise of a calorie-free treat has stronger pull than any of these deterrents, which is why the next big sweetener is always around the corner. The histories of these compounds also reveal the unexpected roads the scientific discovery process takes; the path to sugar-free sweetness takes detours through everything from coal tar to ulcer medication.

Saccharin, named for the Latin word for sugar, was discovered accidentally in by a Johns Hopkins University researcher who was looking for new uses for coal tar derivatives. He forgot to wash his hands before lunch and tasted something sweet on his fingers. After tasting everything in his lab to determine the source, he figured out it was benzoic sulfimide, a coal tar derivative that is times sweeter than sugar.

Fun fact: Monsanto got its start in selling saccharin. By , saccharin was already widely used in sodas and canned goods, but most Americans had no idea it was in their food.

As part of a series of sweeping food and drug reforms, Harvey Wiley, the head of the chemical division of the United States Department of Agriculture, recommended banning saccharin for possibly being toxic.

The person who got in his way was President Theodore Roosevelt, who was on a weight-loss regimen that included a dose of saccharin prescribed by his doctor. That may not sound too radical, but sweetener brands tend to be associated with the stuff they're made of, as well as the color of their packaging.

Splenda is made from sucralose and comes in yellow packets. Equal is composed of aspartame and is packaged in blue -- and so on. NutraSweet launched an aspartame or "blue" sweetener earlier this month and has plans for a "pink" saccharin-based product, and a "green" natural-based sweetener. A "yellow" sucralose product could follow.

But she added, "The biggest challenge [NutraSweet] faces is Splenda. But by , Splenda led the market with a 38 percent share, compared with 24 percent for Equal, according to Information Resources Inc.

Now, Splenda's share is about 61 percent, while Equal and Sweet'n Low each have about 13 percent of the market. Splenda's rise has hurt Merisant: Its annual sales fell 16 percent between and , according to a federal securities filing. Merisant has long claimed that Splenda's success has been abetted by misleading advertising that implies Splenda is healthier and more natural than its rivals.

The settlement was one of several big events in the sugar-substitute business this year. Another: NutraSweet got back the rights to its brand name from Merisant.

The two companies have a shared history. Until , both were part of Monsanto Co. Monsanto sold its tabletop business to one private-equity group, and its aspartame production operation to another. Until this year the two companies continued to have strong ties. Merisant was allowed to use the NutraSweet brand for one of its own tabletop sweeteners.