<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Did you know that artificial sweeteners were discovered by accident? Each and every sweetener on the market today was created by scientists who, to put it politely, didn\u2019t follow the basic safety protocols my organic chemistry professor drilled into me. In other words, they didn\u2019t wash their hands well enough.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Saccharin (found in Sweet\u2019N Low) was discovered<\/a> when a researcher was working with coal derivatives and didn\u2019t wash his hands before lunch. He noticed that his sandwich tasted surprisingly sweet that day. Another researcher, who (you guessed it!) also did not wash his hands, was taking a smoke break from investigating potential fever-reducing drugs and found that his cigarette tasted sweet (the resulting sweetener, Cyclamate, is now banned in the U.S.). Aspartame (found in Diet Coke, amongst other products) was found by a scientist who was researching ulcer medication and, apparently, had a bad habit of licking his fingers. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Luckily for these researchers, their inattention to lab safety led to lucrative patents, instead of deaths by poisoning. That said, however, the potential health risks of artificial sweeteners have been a controversial topic since their creation, and recent research has purported that these substances may negatively affect reproductive health, in particular. In this article, we\u2019ll take a look at what the data does (and doesn\u2019t) say about the effects of non-nutritive sweeteners on weight, diabetes risk, ovarian health, and more. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Food additives that are used to provide sweetness without calories are called \u201cnon-nutritive sweeteners\u201d (NNS), a category which includes artificial sweeteners, as well as naturally derived sugar substitutes like stevia and monk fruit. (For the purposes of this article, we\u2019ll be using the terms \u201cnon-nutritive sweeteners\u201d and \u201cartificial sweeteners\u201d synonymously.) These sugar substitutes are many times more potently sweet than sugar from sugarcane, which means that much smaller amounts can be used when substituting them for sugar.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While these substitutes are similar enough <\/em>to sugar to activate the sweet receptors on your taste buds, they are also different enough <\/em>that they are not broken down the same way sugar is within the body. For example, table sugar is composed of sucrose, which easily breaks down in the body into the simple carbohydrates glucose and fructose. Your body knows exactly how to either store these, or break them down for quick energy. But some artificial sweeteners are different enough from natural carbohydrates that the body cannot break them down at all. Sweeteners like stevia<\/a>, on the other hand, are partially broken down and fermented by bacteria in the gut, and then absorbed in the intestines; a process which means they still do not provide the body with any calories.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (Of note: Other sugar substitutes are simply low calorie, and so they are not considered non-nutritive sweeteners. This category includes various sugar alcohols that are both partially absorbed and partially fermented in the gut.) <\/p>\n\n\n\n As outlined in an article by Healthline<\/a>, different studies on artificial sweeteners yield different results about their various effects on health. A few examples of the different questions researchers have sought to answer about non-nutritive sweeteners include: Do sweeteners result in weight loss or weight gain? Do they contribute to type 2 diabetes or lower the risk? Do they increase hunger and cravings for sweets or curb them? <\/p>\n\n\n\n Right now, there is conflicting evidence to support both the idea that artificial sweeteners can aid in weight loss\u2013but that they may also contribute to weight gain<\/em>. Likewise, conflicting evidence supports the idea that artificial sweeteners can reduce your risk for type 2 diabetes\u2026 but that they also could raise <\/em>it in certain populations. And (you guessed it!) conflicting evidence supports both the ideas that artificial sweeteners don\u2019t increase your hunger, but they might <\/em>make you crave more sugary foods. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Despite these contradictory studies, in 2023, the World Health Organization<\/a> (WHO) advised against using non-nutritive sweeteners for weight control \u201cbased on the findings of a systematic review of the available evidence which suggests that use of NSS does not confer any long-term benefit in reducing body fat in adults or children. Results of the review also suggest that there may be potential undesirable effects from long-term use of NSS, such as an increased risk of type 2 diabetes<\/a>, cardiovascular diseases, and mortality in adults.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Importantly, a 2020 study<\/a> might provide the best reasoning to take the WHO\u2019s recommendation against non-nutritive sweeteners seriously. Researchers investigated the connection between artificial sweeteners and type 2 diabetes<\/a> to explore the phenomenon that taste itself may produce a biochemical response<\/em> in the body. The 2020 study actually found that using artificial sweeteners for prolonged periods of time increased insulin resistance<\/a>, which led researchers to suggest that merely tasting <\/em>something sweet signals the body to release insulin. However, since there is no glucose for that insulin to act upon, the cells eventually become less responsive to insulin (this, of course, is the very definition of insulin resistance) [1].<\/p>\n\n\n\n The 2020 study actually found that using artificial sweeteners for prolonged periods of time increased insulin resistance, which led researchers to suggest that merely tasting <\/em>something sweet signals the body to release insulin. However, since there is no glucose for that insulin to act upon, the cells eventually become less responsive to insulin (this, of course, is the very definition of insulin resistance).<\/p><\/blockquote><\/figure>\n\n\n\n Now, it\u2019s no surprise to anyone that our taste buds have taste receptors to tell us when something is sweet (or bitter or savory). But what we\u2019re just now beginning to understand, as this report published in May 2025 outlines<\/a>, is that taste receptors are actually found on multiple organs, including the ovaries<\/em>. Furthermore, these taste receptors play \u201ccrucial roles in ovulation, menstrual cycle regulation, and embryo implantation.\u201d The way these ovarian taste receptors work is fascinating (including their relationship to PCOS<\/a>), but for now, suffice it to say that these receptors can be activated by both nutrients and <\/em>hormones, and in turn can affect hormone levels [2].<\/p>\n\n\n\n Taste receptors are actually found on multiple organs, including the ovaries<\/em>. Furthermore, these taste receptors play \u201ccrucial roles in ovulation, menstrual cycle regulation, and embryo implantation.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote><\/figure>\n\n\n\n For example, a 2019 study<\/a> of the effects of different sweeteners on the reproductive health of adult female mice looked at both saccharin and rebaudioside A (which comes from the stevia plant), and found that these hyper-sweet additives do <\/em>affect ovarian taste receptors. Mice treated with saccharin had significantly higher progesterone levels compared to the control group. Mice in both the saccharin and stevia groups also had an increased number of corpora lutea (mice release several eggs each ovulation and thus have more than one corpus luteum<\/a>), longer estrus cycles than the control group, and thicker endometria<\/a>, especially in the stevia-treated mice [3].<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the same study, researchers also observed higher expression of a protein called apoptosis-inducing factor in the follicles and egg cells of the ovary in the sweetener-treated mice, especially in the saccharin-treated group. Apoptosis is programmed cell-death, and it is the body\u2019s way of removing damaged cells before these cells can start to cause problems (such as becoming cancerous). Researchers hypothesized that this protein was released in response to ovarian oxidative stress induced by the high-dose sweeteners [3].<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sweeteners skewing hormonal balance and causing oxidative stress in ovaries sounds bad, but let\u2019s do a little math before we panic. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The mice in the study were each drinking around 171.1 mg of saccharin a day. Based on this chart<\/a> from the FDA, a Sweet N\u2019 Low packet has 20mg of saccharin, so these mice were chowing down on 8.6 packets worth of Sweet N\u2019 Low a day. The same chart says the FDA considers it safe to eat 45 packets a day, but that statistic is for a 60kg (132 lb) person. Since a 132 lb person weighs the same as 1382.5 mice (seriously, mice are tiny!), then the FDA for Mice (should such an institution ever exist) would urge mice to consume only 0.65 of a Sweet N\u2019 Low packet each day. That means the mice in this study were eating over 13 times the FDA\u2019s recommended daily saccharin limit. The human equivalent would be nearly 600 Sweet N\u2019 Low packets per day<\/em>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n That means the mice in this study were eating over 13 times the FDA\u2019s recommended daily saccharin limit. The human equivalent would be nearly 600 Sweet N\u2019 Low packets per day<\/em>. <\/p><\/blockquote><\/figure>\n\n\n\n If eating 600 Sweet N\u2019 Low packets everyday sounds absurd, it\u2019s because it is. But \u201csaccharin causes cell death in ovaries\u201d sounds way more interesting than \u201cwe fed a reasonable amount of sweet tea to a mouse and nothing happened.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n I don\u2019t know what the motivations were behind the methods used in this experiment, whether it was to produce a definitive result to ensure being published and attract funding for further research, to create a specific narrative about non-nutritive sweeteners, or simply failing to adjust sweetener dosage to the tiny weight of a mouse. What I do know is that scientific publications are not immune to having their own biases, slants, and hype, and that we have to account for that when looking at statistics and research (like the CDC\u2019s supposed FAM failure range<\/a> of 2-23%). <\/p>\n\n\n\n While the extreme dosage in the 2019 mice study makes it difficult to draw conclusions about the effects of more moderate use of non-nutritive sweeteners on the reproductive system, the research on the potential link between these sweeteners on insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes is perhaps the most compelling argument for using these sweeteners sparingly. (Besides, does anyone else find that stevia has a weird, chalky taste?). <\/p>\n\n\n\nFirst: How can sweetener additives be low- or no- calorie? <\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Conflicting research on risks vs. benefits of non-nutritive sweeteners<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Despite contradictory studies, WHO still advises against consumption of artificial sweeteners<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The effects of non-nutritive sweeteners on ovarian health<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Putting these results into perspective<\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
A note about sorting data from the headlines<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The bottom line on the effects of non-nutritive sweeteners on reproductive health and more<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n