Talk:Neotame/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
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)
- The section should be re-added again, this time with citations. Remember, Wikipedia should not be censored. Artman40 (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
That paragraph is a bunch of insane scaremongering. Tons of tests have been done on artificial sweeteners, and few of them have proven unsafe. The passage above uses weasel words and passive voice to get around the fact that there are no reputable scientific organizations or studies who back up these views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.177.13.194 (talk) 22:35, 3 February 2012 (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)
The Chinese translation is based on the following....
--222.67.211.208 (talk) 10:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
The chemical as a food additive....Acceptable daily intake....
--222.67.211.208 (talk) 10:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Compendial info....
--222.67.211.208 (talk) 10:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Specs...
--222.67.211.208 (talk) 11:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Citation needed
Found this link with the EU directive http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:344:0037:0040:EN:PDF will that do? If so, can s.o. fiddle it in. I feel too new and inexperienced to handle the html. thanks --Claudia Owala (talk) 13:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)