Talk:Neotame

Discussion

I have removed one of the links on the main page because it's simply horrible from a scientific standpoint, but left the other because it's at least a little more reasonable and I do support a diverse range of viewpoints.

However, I believe the whole glutamate argument is pretty flimsy against neotame. Yes, some people are glutamate sensitive, but it seems like everybody forgets that free glutamate is found pretty much anywhere there's protein! Neotame is both substantially more potent than aspartame (usage levels are measured in ppm - about 97% lower than aspartame) and substantially more stable. This means the risk for side effects is dramatically reduced.

Comparing neotame to aspartame straight away is not really very fair either. They are similar compounds, but even subtle differences can take a substance from deadly to life giving.

Citing reports of headaches associated with neotame is another difficult thing. Neotame is so sweet, some people develop a sensory overload from too much sweetness. There's nothing mysterious about being overstimulated and developing a headache.

I have personally worked with a glutamate sensitive individual and experimented with neotame ingestion. There were no side effects. This individual is so hyper-sensitive that she has issues eating meat, cheese, dairy products, etc. Even miso and other fermented products trigger a reaction. I was not able to determine any threshold that she could ingest in food and drink that evoked any reaction. I suppose I could have administered neotame in capsule form, but why? I mean... many vitamins are essential nutrients, but you could easily kill yourself with an overdose of those same vitamins.

And before you ask, no, I do not work for the producers of neotame. I am simply a health-concerned individual who is giving this serious scientific scrutiny. Blueandwhiteg3 23:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I took away the other anti-neotame link, because most of it makes no sense, either. Comparing neotame and MSG is really quite stupid, because although they share a structural similarity, neotame is not metabolized to glutamate or glutamic acid, and therefore will interact with the body very differently. Likeitsmyjob 21:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

This looks like it was written by a PR person from Monsanto. Maybe the article should be modified to seem less biased towards the product? User:AaronProot 12:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not work for Monsanto, and if you read Likeitsmyjob's profile, it seems unlikely he's employed by Monsanto. I articles should reflect the current scientifically supported status without undue bias. In accordance with that, I have modified the article so that it is unbiased in terms of how it is worded. If you wish to express concerns associated with the consumption of neotame, please cite valid studies or other substantiated scientific claims - that how a page like this can be "balanced" - changing the tone of the article to be skeptical is not really very fair, especially in the absence of any scientific data to the contrary. For example, the moderate heat stability of neotame is pretty clear if you ever work with the stuff. 67.168.9.80 22:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but that link was even more terrible than the last one. It'd be nice to find a relatively unbiased external link relating to neotame, but they don't seem to be out there. This doesn't justify putting junk science in the article. Jesse 04:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Looking through the history, I see that this link has been posted twice before. Please, whoever is putting this ridiculous link here, stop. Jesse 04:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Likeitsmyjob - Thank you for also patrolling this page! I've looked into all of this stuff and I really can't find any evidence with merit for problems with neotame, not even anecdotal evidence that I can demonstrate. Neotame is used in such tiny quantities and is even more stable than aspartame, in some ingredients there are higher levels of known toxins than neotame - and this is completely safe. With people who bring up junk science, it is like beating my head against concrete sometimes... for people who buy into extreme scare sites with no science, I love to point them to http://www.dhmo.org/ and then have a discussion after that. Unless they're really stupid, it usually forces them to think a little more... Blueandwhiteg3 19:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice corporate propaganda! Why is it, that neurotoxic chemicals at wiki are usually been presented like they were safe, while pages about herbals and vitams are full of warnings? Aspartame and other poisons are safe? Neotame is out to become the next poison from zion. BakuninXL 08:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to call into question the neutrality of this article. I agree that www.holisticmed.com/neotame/ is crap; but this articles writing style is not that of an encylcopedia format for informing, but rather an advertising format for selling. Furthermore it's likely that this product has been edited by individuals hired by Nutrasweet, as has become a practice by other companies such as Microsoft; thus I ask only that a warning label "the neutrality of this article is disputed" be placed upon this article. Because I am at least one who disputes it, and the argument above this one seems to second that (or perhaps, more appropriately, I am seconding it).

Caloric content

Is neotame a zero-calorie sweetener? This would be relevant information to the low-carb articles... 63.96.196.190

Considering it's 6,000 times sweeter than sugar, the necessary amount required to make something equivalently sweet is unlikely to result in anything more than 5 kcal/serving unit, which means in the USA it can be labeled as zero-calorie. (Yes, that's seriously true, check out the Sucralose article) --Puellanivis 01:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and carefull attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed some non-sourced scaremongering

I removed this from "Controversies", since it's not about Neotame specifically, and doesn't cite any references:

It has been put forth by many in the scientific community that there are NO safe artificial sweeteners due to the metabolites produced in the human body when they are digested and for the potential toxic chemicals they may produce when altered by cooking procedures that expose them to high heats and the chemical processes that occur when foods are cooked.

For this reason it has been strongly advised that in the interest of preventing potential health problems there be NO consumption of ANY product containing these potentially toxic agents by children or those of childbearing age until there have been long term studies that are able to look at the cumulative effects of these chemicals on the human body.

It has also been suggested that the ONLY time these products should be used is by those such as type 1 diabetics where natural sugar is a greater health risk when all other natural products such as stevia have been tried and found unusable due to adverse reactions.

I don't think "there are NO safe artificial sweeteners" is a commonly-help medical/scientific opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbessey (talk • contribs) 18:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

edit suggestions

Was gonna go though the article and make some changes but I'll admit I don't have a clue about sweeteners(except eating a tablespoon of this stuff would be real nice). Following bold are parts I believe should be moved down(not general knowledge,wrong area,etc). Italics should be sourced asap.--Wilson (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Neotame is an artificial sweetener made by NutraSweet that is between 8,000 and 13,000 times sweeter than sucrose (table sugar). Neotame is moderately heat stable and extremely potent, and is considered to be of no danger to those suffering from phenylketonuria(EDIT NOTE:specific benefits to small groups should not be in first paragraph to avoid preachyness), as it does not metabolize into phenylalanine.[1] (EDIT NOTE:metabolism seperated from general intro) The product is rapidly metabolized, completely eliminated, and does not accumulate in the body.[2] The major metabolic pathway is hydrolysis of the methyl ester by esterases that are present throughout the body, which yields de-esterified neotame and methanol. Because only trace amounts of neotame are needed to sweeten foods, the amount of methanol derived from neotame is much lower than that found in common foods, such as fruit and vegetable juices.

The product is attractive to food manufacturers as its use greatly lowers the cost of production compared to using sugar or high fructose corn syrup[3] while also benefitting the consumer by providing fewer "empty" sugar calories and a lower impact on blood sugar.(EDIT NOTE:sounds like an old infomercial)

It is chemically similar to the popular artificial sweetener aspartame, but is used at vastly lower levels and is much more stable. Chemically, it has a 3,3-dimethylbutyl group attached to the amino group of the aspartic acid portion of the molecule. Peptidases, which would typically break the peptide bond between the aspartic acid and phenylalanine moieties, are effectively blocked by the presence of the 3,3-dimethylbutyl moiety, thus reducing the production of phenylalanine, thereby eliminating concerns for those who suffer from phenylketonuria.

Neotame was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for general use in July 2002, but is not yet widely used in food products.(EDIT NOTE:brought together,could be expanded upon[why is its use rare,etc]) Neotame is assigned the International Numbering System (INS) food additive code 961[4].

[edit] Controversies Although over 100 studies were conducted on Neotame to prove its safety prior to FDA approval,[5](EDIT NOTE:adding a specific study result to typify this section would be nice) the controversy relating to aspartame has caused a stir among opponents of artificial sweeteners.[citation needed](EDIT NOTE:which controversy?)

k,think thats all. Will leave up for discussion before editing in the future. Also, adding more internal links. --Wilson (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

done some minor rearanging. also note paragraph two is taken directly from the pdf, this is a violention of some such regulation and should be reworked by an expert. --Wilson (talk) 16:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)