Antioxidant Supplements can Cause Cancer?!

Over the years, we have been bombarded through magazines, television and other advertisements that antioxidants prevent cancer because they stop the production of free radicals that can harm one's DNA.  Because of this notion, people would often end up taking medical supplements such as vitamin C and E to compensate for their lack of intake of these vitamins from the foods they eat. The problem is that piling them into your system is necessarily a good thing. Even though manufacturers test these supplements through experiments and the supplements knock out free radicals in a test tube, once inside the human body, they would react differently. Not only are these supplements bad at preventing oxidation, they can even worsen the situation and cause cancer.

According to a study published in the Journal of Nutrition, women who took vitamin A, vitamin E, beta-carotene, selenium, and zinc supplement developed skin cancer at a rate of 1.3% while the women who were not taking the supplement developed skin cancer at a rate of only 0.7% which was significantly less. According to another study from several years ago, smokers taking high dose of vitamin A actually had an increased risk of lung cancer compared to those not taking vitamin A. In addition, Mayo Clinic review found out that beta-carotene supplements actually increased the risk of smoking-related cancers. Several aggregated analyses have concluded that beta-carotene, vitamin A, and vitamin E supplements all increase the risk of death, but vitamin C seems to have no effect on the risk of cancer.

Why is this so?

Many researchers suspect that the many beneficial properties may get lost when they're extracted from whole foods and used in tablet form. Some say that by taking these supplements and increasing the intake of antioxidant dosage, cancer cells are at increased risk of damage from oxidative stress than healthy cells. In other words, taking antioxidants might ironically be protecting your cancer cells and allowing them to survive. However, there are still no studies that can prove whether this hypothesis is true.

In conclusion, the problem is not the antioxidants but the antioxidant supplements. Everything should be taken in moderation and the best way to get the antioxidants one needs is still from his diet.

Reference:

Benabio. Cancer Myths Debunked: Antioxidant Supplements Protect You From Cancer. Available at http://thedermblog.com/2008/03/10/cancer-myths-debunked-antioxidants-protect-you-from-cancer. Accessed on October 08, 2010

Five Cancer Myths Exposed. Available at: http://www.allaboutyou.com/diet-wellbeing/health-advice-cancer-myths-exposed-antioxidants/gallery. Accessed on October 08, 2010

Oil Talk: Which is Better?

Pasta is never pasta without the oil. You may have the best sort of noodles, or all the herbs and spices but for it to authentically taste good, you cannot do without oil. Oil may seem like the bad guy in most recipes - only a necessary evil to keep food from sticking in a frying pan but for pasta to be truly, essentially pasta, there has to be the right oil. My favorite sort of pasta is pesto and it might help others if we compare the sort of oils that you can use to make it really be worth it. Every oil may have different properties that may contribute differently to the general taste of the pasta.

Olive Oil

The traditional oil used for pesto is olive oil, that glorious oil taken from the olives usually associated with the Greeks and the goddess Athena (incidentally, the one from whom the Ateneo is named after). It’s green color provides for the characteristic color of pesto. This oil is composed of mixed triglyceride esters of oleic acid palmitic acid. It is characteristically rich in monounsaturated fats considered to be good for reducing risk of coronary heart disease. It may be a bit expensive in the Philippines though, since olive oil is imported but the richness of taste, consistency and health benefits might be worth it for you. If you want the traditional Western pesto - with it's texture and taste, olive oil is a must.

Sesame Oil

A possible alternative to olive oil could be sesame oil taken from sesame seeds. This is usually used in Chinese, Korean and other Asian delicacies. It has a high level of polyunsaturated fatty acids and natural antioxidants present in the oil and is generally healthy The color might be a little less green than olive oil, but sesame oil is cheaper than olive oil. It also gives a distinctive Asian version to your pesto pasta, that can be coupled with choosing ingredients that are more Asian as well like peanuts, and more tropical herbs.

So choose carefully which oil you use, and make sure you align your other ingredients with the oil. That may be the key for really good pesto pasta you can enjoy.

Fat-free Foods, Really?

Most of us, if not all, prefer fat-free or calorie-free foods over the ordinary foods we can buy in the market. We have this notion that less fat means less calories. But are these foods really what they claim to be?

In an effort to join the society in health awareness, many food industries began marketing, processing, and selling fat-free food choices. Indeed, these so-called fat-free foods are an allure for healthier diets. Most of the fat-free foods include fat-free cookies, cakes, ice cream, yogurt, and many more. The main reason for such fad in these foods is that fat-free foods are considered to be a cholesterol lowering diet. However, to our dismay, fat-free foods are not actually free of fat.

The Food and Drug Administration labels food as fat-free if it contains less than 0.5 g of fats (whether it is saturated fat or trans fat) per serving. Hence, some Nutritional Facts label may state that a food is 0g of fat when in fact there is trace amounts of fats present in the food.

It is important to note that eating a lot of servings of these fat-free foods do not really help in your diet. In actuality, these may correspond to many grams of fats and calories. A consumer must know that the reduction of fat in food products requires alteration for the product to maintain the taste and consistency similar to the original product. For this to happen, the fat components are replaced with carbohydrate additives. As such, fat-free foods may contribute to weight gain.

It cannot be denied that the label 'fat-free' provides the unaware consumers the comfort and confidence that eating much of these kinds of foods will not significantly affect their weight. Most of the consumers fail to notice the caloric consequences of the substitutions to make the food "fat-free". As such, with the notion that fat-free diets is better over the natural products, the greater impact of over-consumption of carbohydrates in our diet are unnoticed.

With more people concerned to lose weight, there is no doubt that people are still looking for alternative ways to reduce body weight. For health-conscious people, it helps to check out the food labels for the serving size and number of calories per serving. But most importantly, it is much better to live a healthy life rather than focus your attention to weight loss regimen.

Reference:

Clinics, University of Iowa Hospitals and. Fat-Free Foods. n.d. http://www.uihealthcare.com/topics/nutrition/nutr3297.html (accessed October 8, 2010).

Irvine, Dita. Tips to Lose Weight - The Fat Free Myth. n.d. http://ezinearticles.com/?Tips-to-Lose-Weight---The-Fat-Free-Myth&id=3597662 (accessed October 8, 2010).

Top 10 Food Myths and Facts. n.d. http://www.womenfitness.net/top10_foodmyths_facts.htm (accessed October 8, 2010).

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 2006. Available at: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/qatrans2.html.

Accessed 8 October 2010.

We should love Cholesterol?

Arguably, cholesterol is one of the most overrated reasons people pin on cardiovascular diseases. Not only do they simply blame cholesterol levels in serum, they also blame fatty diet to be the reason for the diseases. But one should not confuse cholesterol with fats; they are unique from each other such that fats are fatty acids (carboxylic acids containing fatty tails) while cholesterol is a type of sterol.

It is important to note that cholesterol doesn’t simply build up in the body due to diet, but rather, the body itself biosynthetically produces cholesterol from various precursors (most abundantly is from Acetyl-CoA). In this light, it can be seen that cholesterol plays an important role in the functioning of the human body. Not only is it an important membrane component, but it also acts as a precursor to the production of bile acids and steroid hormones. Moreover, the body also has its own mechanism of regulating cholesterol levels in the body by activating nuclear receptors that would instigate the conversion of cholesterol to bile acids.

The importance of cholesterol in human physiology has been recognized in the past –Nobel Prize winners for Physiology Konrad Bloch (1963), M.S. Brown and J.L. Goldstein (1985) for their work in metabolism and regulation of cholesterol in the human body. Based on their work, it was discovered that cholesterol plays many roles in different biological processes and is relatively a common compound in the body. Another important biological process that involves the compound cholesterol is the production of Vitamin D – a type of fat-soluble vitamin that helps the blood absorb and maintain concentration levels of calcium and phosphorus to construct strong bones.

 Ancel Keys, an American Physiologist who studied health effects of diet, was among the few that postulated the correlation between cholesterol levels in serum with cardiovascular diseases. In his study – Seven Countries Study – there was a claim that the rate of getting cardiovascular diseases was associated with the average serum cholesterol levels and per capita intake of saturated fats. Critics were quick to point out that Keys didn’t point out which type saturated fats were ingested (in terms of length). Moreover, various studies done parallel to Keys showed that the association of high cholesterol and saturated fat intake with cardiovascular diseases was isolated to American countries while some Asian countries such as Japan didn’t show such correlation.

It is important to point out however that there are generally two kinds of lipoproteins known as low-density and high-density lipoproteins – which are coined as “bad” and “good” cholesterol respectively due to associations with increasing or decreasing the risk of coronary heart diseases respectively. Saturated fat in the diet is actually what determines the lipoprotein formation. Long-chain saturated fats are what cause increased levels of low-density lipoproteins. So rather than simply blaming cholesterol, there are also other factors that cause the increased risk of getting cardiovascular diseases.

Recent studies (in the US) show that there’s actually no correlation between the risk of getting cardiovascular diseases and intake of saturated fats. In fact, the incidence of obesity and type II diabetes actually increased despite the decreased consumption of dietary fat.

With the hype of decreasing cholesterol levels in serum, people not only focused on diet, but as well as the use of medication. Inhibition of cholesterol synthesis in the body gained research interest, which then paved the way to the development of the drug known as lovastatin – belonging to the class of compound known as statins that block endogenous cholesterol biosynthesis. It is important to note however that statins have been found to have side-effects such as muscle aches, memory loss, deteriorating cognitive functions, and liver damage. This may be attributed to the fact that statins have the tendency to inhibit the biosynthesis of other important endogenous compounds in the body.

Based on this diagram from (Ferranti and Ludwig, NEJM, 2008), it can be said that by inhibiting the biosynthesis of cholesterol, antioxidant activity, intracellular processes and steroid hormone synthesis are also affected.

One alternative that has been developed in decreasing blood cholesterol levels is actually the discovery of phytosterols – sterols that act as structural components in plant membranes similar to how cholesterol act in mammalian cells. Phytosterols have been found to decrease total cholesterol level and low-density lipoprotein level without compromising high-density lipoprotein level. It’s a better alternative to decreasing cholesterol levels compared to statins such that it works on a different mechanism than statins. Rather than inhibiting cholesterol biosynthesis, phyosterols instead compete with cholesterol with regards to intestinal absorption. Phytosterols are available in various vegetable oils such as corn oil and soybean oil. Rather than just relying on drug intake, it seems that dieting is still the safest answer with regards to controlling serum levels.

Did you know?

·      A large percentage of our brain is actually made up of cholesterol

·      Cholesterol in the body is obtained not only through diet but also because of natural biosynthesis

·      Lovastatin is one of the most widely used statin in the world

·      Biosynthesis of Ubiquinones – which are rumored to work as anti-oxidants – are interrupted by intake of statins

·      Statins also inhibit the biosynthesis of carrier lipids

Reference:

Dayrit, Fabian. Sterols in Human Physiology, (2010)

Yeah! Go Organic!: The Organic Myth

A lot of us believe that we are what we eat. With the digestion processes in mind, definitely, this is not an issue. Nowadays, it’s ideal to eat organic foods over processed foods. Organic foods are deemed to be pure, pesticide-free, and locally produced. Are there in fact significant differences between the organic and nonorganic foods?

According to Time Magazine, “Organic foods currently represent only about 3% of the total US market, and anywhere from around 1% to 7% in European countries. Japan has traditionally been the largest organic market in Asia…” Many believe that consuming foods which are naturally grown is a healthier option. Organic foods are also known to contain more vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants. Lastly, organic foods do not contain chemicals such fertilizers and pesticides that may harm the human body and the environment. Although going organic offers great advantages to the body, it cannot be denied that it costs more than the ordinary produce. In the Philippines, this is evident on the price of brown (organic) rice over the white rice commonly sold in the market. Undeniably, for people that can afford organic foods, they prefer to go organic believing that it has its edge in terms of nutritional value. However, according to Time magazine, based on the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition study of 2009, it has been found that there is “no difference between organic and conventional produce with regard to all but three of the vitamins and other food components studied, and conventional produce actually squeaked past organic for one of those three”. If this is the case, why go organic? In reality, the facts on nutritional value contents of organic and conventional are still indistinct.

With all these fuss about organic foods, many food companies are scrambling down the road to take a hitch on the organic lifestyle. This is organic business. However, the greater concern for us Filipinos is the actual food availability and food distribution. For a developing country, only the affluent elite can fully support the movement for organic foods considering that these are relatively expensive. In order to keep the foods (especially rice) flowing and the prices low, a lot of chemical fertilizers and other industrial engineering processing are involved which alters the state of the produce. For a country that can’t even feed millions of hungry Filipinos, prioritizing organic foods on their diet is not a big concern. However, it is a fact that many of the diseases today that cause death are mainly due to the type of foods we eat. The increase in the number of Filipinos patronizing fast foods and ready-to-eat products (high in fat, salt, food coloring, additives, preservatives, flavoring and other artificial ingredients) are proven to be one of the culprits for diet-related diseases.  According to the survey conducted by the Food and Nutrition Institute of the Department of Science and Technology (FNRI-DOST) first degree obesity affects 18.9% of women and 14.9% of men in the Philippines.

Until now, there are still debates about whether organic foods are better over the conventional foods. But, consumption of organic foods is a personal choice. Whether naturally-grown foods contain more nutrients, it all depends on the person on what type of lifestyle he wants. Eating healthy and living healthy is a more important concern.

Reference:
Kluger, Jeffrey. "What's So Great ABout Organic Food?" Time, September 6, 2010: 34-39.

Solanzo, Florentino. Survey Notes More Obese Filipino Women than Men.

http://www.fnri.dost.gov.ph/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=807 (accessed

October 8, 2010).

“Coffee, Caffeine and Me…”

Caffeine is best known for its stimulating effects. It keeps people awake during stressful times, and keeps the body and mind active. Caffeine is most commonly found in coffee, a refreshing beverage that is the product of brewing of the coffee plant’s berries. There are actually two species of coffee plants that are mainly consumed, the C. robusta and C. arabica. C. robusta, from its namesake, is a thriving plant that is highly resistant to diseases as well as heat. C. arabica, the much more expensive variety, on the other hand grows at temperate climate and requires considerable care. Despite C. arabica having a more enticing aroma, C. robusta has a higher caffeine yield.

A little bit of history, coffee was first discovered in 850 when an Ethiopian goatherd noted how his flock suddenly became agitated and energetic after nibbling on the berries of the coffee plant. After trying for himself, the Ethiopian himself felt energized and excited, thus discovering coffee as a stimulant. The Arabs were the first to learn of the brewing process by boiling dried coffee berries and called the brew as qahwe. The beverage (and term) eventually spread in the Middle East to Turkey, them calling it as kahve and then to Europe specifically in France, where the term café soon flourished.

   

Coffee came to Asia and the Americas during the European Colonization Era, where European powers such as the Dutch, French, Portuguese and Spanish used the colonies of Java, Sri Lanka, the Caribbean, Brazil and the Philippines as plantations for the plant. In the Philippines particularly, coffee production made such a good business that until now the provinces of Batangas and Cavite still consider coffee production as their major industry.

Coffee aroma and intensity very much depends on the way the coffee berries were roasted, particularly with the temperature as well as time. From a mere 250 volatile organic compounds from green coffee, roasted coffee beans contain more than 800 volatile organic compounds, 400 of which affect the coffee’s taste and aroma.

Instant coffee is quite different as compared to normal brewed coffee. Instead of getting simply the liquid brew from the roasted coffee beans, instant coffee actually involves freeze-drying of the extract to remove water content and what’s left are solid granules that you eventually dissolve in your cup to make coffee. In essence, the caffeine content should simply be the same (but occurs otherwise). The only thing that’ll make the difference in the drinking experience would probably be the aroma.

What about coffee without the caffeine? If you think about it, decaffeinated coffee essentially comes from the same roasted coffee beans; it’s just that it goes through a pre-extraction step before the brewing part. One of the procedures previously developed was the use of methylene chloride or ethyl acetate (yes, dangerous organic compounds) in combination with water extraction to remove caffeine. Another decaffeination method that was developed was actually the recycling of used coffee grounds. It involved the use of the coffee oils rich in triglycerides to remove the caffeine. In more recent times, thanks to technology, decaffeination now is much safer, with the use of simply water, CO₂ and high pressure. It is important to note that decaffeinated coffee should essentially smell and taste like normal coffee as the decaffeination process involved “supposedly” only removes caffeine.

As for the science behind Espresso, it simply uses high pressure and water against finely grounded coffee beans in order to extract out the organic compounds that make up the nice aroma of coffee. One should take note that some of the compounds being extracted from coffee are actually undesirable when done improperly. It’s interesting, however, that it seems the aroma produced by espresso is actually a combination of different aromas. It’s as if you’re drinking a cocktail with the aromas of chocolate, tea and cinnamon.

It is said that drinking coffee regularly helps improve overall health due to the presence of “anti-oxidants.” This is due largely to the fact that coffee, like tea and chocolate, contain catechins that are responsible for the anti-oxidative effects. What’s ironic however is that both coffee and tea only contain negligible amounts of these anti-oxidants as compared to dark chocolate. Despite coffee coming off from a berry, the various chemical changes that undergo due to roasting changes and probably destroy those catechins that provide its anti-oxidative properties.

Too bad for its anti-oxidative properties… but on the bright side, caffeine does have some upsides. Medically, caffeine has been used as a CNS, respiratory and cardiac stimulant. Ironically, when one has too much of it there are some side-effects (as with taking too much of anything). Even if the toxicity level is above 10g, having a dose of more than 250mg (at least 3 cups of coffee) can cause insomnia, irritability, nervousness, hyperthermia and headache, not to mention cardiac irregularities as well. Like any other food, moderation is key to maximizing the health benefits of certain types of foods.

Did you know?

·      Decaffeinated coffees still have caffeine, but only in small amounts (2 – 10mg/cup; average brewed coffee has 100 – 250mg/cup)

·      Tea has comparable amounts of caffeine (50 – 150mg/cup) to brewed coffee and has actually more caffeine content than instant coffee on average (50 – 90mg/cup)

·      A 12oz can of cola has about half the caffeine content of a cup of instant coffee

·      The Philippines used to be among the top 4 largest coffee producing countries in the world

·      Tea may be the most consumed beverage in the world, but coffee is the most widely traded

·      Cavite and not Batangas is the unofficial coffee plantation capital of the Philippines

·      For a beverage to be considered caffeine-free, international standard only requires upto 97% removal of caffeine (beware decaffeinated coffee drinkers)

·      There’s such a thing as caffeine-intolerance (but this doesn’t lead to indigestion) which causes formation of methyluric acids when ingesting caffeine (as well as theobromine and theophylline which are present in tea and chocolate), that is for people who suffer from gout

Reference:

Dayrit, Fabian. Alkaloids in Health and Commerce, (2010)

“All teas are just the same?”

Teas are among three kinds of plants that are historically and commercially relevant to many cultures – the others being coffee and cacao. What these three plants have in common is the presence of xanthine alkaloids – naturally occurring compounds that have special biological effects to the body.  Among these xanthine alkaloids that are present in these plants, the most popular are theophylline (tea), theobromine (cacao) and caffeine (coffee).

The tea plant has its scientific name come from the Jesuit missionary Georg Josef Kamel (“Camellia”) and from its country of origin, China (“sinensis”). The word “tea” is of Chinese origin from the Hookien pronunciation of this Chinese character 茶. The plant itself is indigenous to the East Asian region, particularly in China, Japan, India, Sri Lanka and Indonesia. Tea as a beverage can be argued as the most widely consumed drink in the world (ironically, China is the most populated country in the world and tea is a staple drink there).

Culturally, tea is important in Asian cultures. In China, Japan and Korea, tea is very culturally rooted, with tea ceremonies being one of the practices that are traditionally practiced by families. With regards to religion, tea plays an important role in Zen Buddhism. Despite the cultural rootedness of tea in the Asian region, it also became part Western culture particularly in England and Russia. It is important to note that tea is not an exclusive commodity among the rich, but is also drunk by other levels in society.

http://www.elitedresses.com/v/blog/uploaded_images/chinese-tea-ceremony-790623.jpg

There are three basic kinds of tea: Black, Green and Oolong. These three types of tea differ by the flavor that they have. It is important to note that these three basic kinds of tea do not differ by the ingredients used, but rather in the way that they are prepared.

·    Black tea is prepared by oxidizing its constituents through fermentation.

·    Green tea on the other hand is prepared by drying the freshly picked leaves over mild heat skipping the oxidizing process.

·    Oolong tea is unique such that it only goes through a partial oxidation, getting a flavor that’s a mix of Black and Green tea.

·    It is important to note that herbal and medicinal teas are completely different from the three mentioned, for the fact that herbal and medicinal teas do not contain any tea leaves at all, but instead are made out of flowers, berries, peels, seeds, leaves and roots from other plants.

Teas – particularly Green tea – is good for human consumption such that it contains vitamin C, vitamin B and other essential compounds that promote good health such as riboflavin, niacin, folic acid and pantothenic acid. Moreover, minerals are also present within Green tea such as magnesium, potassium and manganese. Moreover, the xanthine alkaloid present in tea – theophylline – is used as a diuretic, mycocardial stimulant, and smooth muscle relaxant, making tea have good pharmacological effects in moderate consumptions.

Did you know?

·      That tea was once considered to a prized commodity that it reached up to $100/lb

·      Milk tea was first invented in 1680 by the Dutch

·      That there’s a “correct” way of brewing tea

o   Black tea for 3 to 5 minutes

o   Green tea for 1 to 3 minutes with cooler water than black tea

o   Water used must be aerated (oxygen is needed to release full flavor of tea)

·      Five cups of green tea can provide decent amount of magnesium, potassium and manganese into the diet in relation to the daily averaged requirement

·      A cup of green tea has more fluoride than the average fluorinated water

Reference:

Dayrit, Fabian. Alkaloids in Health and Commerce, (2010)

“Chinese Tea Ceremoy: It’s Importance.” Available from http://blog.elitedresses.com/2009/06/chinese-tea-ceremony-its-importance.html. Accessed on 08 October 2010.

Sugar free: Freedom or Warning?

As a six-year old kid with a sweet tooth, I would always ask my grandfather what sugar-free meant. Of course, he had diabetes and would drink a diet soda instead of the regular one that I used to have when we ate out at the mall. At a certain point, my grandmother would buy sugar-free ice cream and I always wondered what they would taste like. Like how the Professor added sugar with spice and everything nice to make the Powerpuff Girls, as a child, I used to associate sweetness with just sugar – that white powder that smells so sweet and ants would go after. I didn’t know what sugar-free meant because my parents said it isn’t for kids. But what I realized now is that sugar-free is far from being “not-sweet”. In fact, what I learned is that it is sweeter than sweet but in a different sort of way.

Common table sugar, that nice thing I just described, is chemically known as sucrose – a disaccharide of fructose and glucose. It is harvested from sugar cane and milled and refined to be the sugar we use in our coffee or in our pancakes or what mommy might add in her cupcakes. It is the most common sweetener used in a lot of products that we consider a taste of heaven. Of course, sugar is bedeviled by the fact that people afflicted by chronic conditions like diabetes or extreme obesity can no longer just enjoy the normally sweet delights. The main reasons why sugar is avoided include assisting in weight loss, taking care of the teeth, dealing with conditions like diabetes mellitus and reactivehypoglycemia. My parents were right when they said sugar-free isn’t for kids, probably because they knew when I grew up, I would probably have to get used to a life without sugar.

So was I right when, as a child, I thought these sugar-free products, were, in fact, not sweet at all and that having diabetes was to be condemned to such a miserable life? That wasn’t true at all thanks to artificial sweeteners. Some of the well-known artificial sweeteners include saccharin, aspartame, sucralose, neotame, acesulfame potassium and stevia. Let’s focus on two sweeteners that you’ll probably regularly find in the food labels of your favorite brand of sugar-free deserts.

One of the most well known, and controversial, artificial sweeteners still allowed in the Philippines is Aspartame or dipeptide aspartylphenylalanine methyl ester. First synthesized in 1965, it is also known by its commericial name of NutraSweet. Though 200 times sweeter than sucrose, its calorie per teaspoon content compared to sucrose is 1:16. In the Philippines, you’ll probably find Aspartame in your favorite diet soda. It can degrade at very high temparatures to its constituent amino acids so it is important to remember not to use it when you bake sugar-free cupcakes! Though approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) way back in 1981, there has been a lot of speculation that this sweetener is not sweet at all to a person’s health. The introduction of a bill filled by Sen. Miriam Santiago in the 14thCongress actually calls Aspartame as “by far, the most dangerous substance on the market that is added to foods.” However, the U.S. FDA has continues to insist that aspartame is safe for human regular consumption.

Another much older sweetener is saccharin or benzoic sulfimide. First produced in 1878, saccharin is also sweeter than sugar and has very negligible calorie contribution. However, it has a characteristic bitter aftertaste that makes it necessary to often use saccharin with other sweeteners. Though also unstable at higher temperatures, it mostly does not react with other food ingredients and is therefore ideal for high shelf-life products. In most countries, saccharin is used together with aspartame in diet soda. It is interesting to note that, like aspartame, it had a rough history with its approval as a sweetener marred by controversy and speculation of its carcinogenic properties. Today, most countries allow for its use and others that had previously banned this special sweetener have now allowed it.

Sugar free might not be so liberating after all, despite the freedom from calories, which we think we get from using these sweeteners. Aside from the possible, undetermined risk of cancer among other things, the freedom might lull us to a sense of complacency. I can drink five cans when I used to just drink one because it doesn’t really matter in terms of sugar content. This is, of course, a recipe for disaster. It is a misnomer to think that sugar free products actually give a license for unlimited consumption. It is not as if we are eating nothing and this may be hard to remember when we get products that have the “sugar free” label. As with my experience with my own family, moderation, not artificial sweeteners, is the real key to a healthier life. “Sugar free” may allow people like me who just need the delight of sweetness to enjoy it despite any health conditions, but, as Spiderman would say, with great power, comes great responsibility. “Sugar free” may also mean a warning sign. Health is not about “cheating sugar” but understanding that to be healthy is vigilant moderation.