mccloud-tom at worldnet.att.net
Wed Dec 27 18:20:20 EST 2000
I have problems with calling non-sugar sweeteners 'artificial
sugar', as sugar implies a certain chemotype. There are some
non-sucrose, non-fructose sweeteners that are sugars (xylulose) and
are very poorly metabolized by most microorganisms. But the most
commonly used sweeteners are not sugars at all. 'Aspartame' is a
blocked dipeptide so certainly capable of being metabolized by some
microbes, though I don't know which ones. You remember that
phenylketonurics are not supposed to consume aspartame, right?
Cyclamates and saccharine are both synthetic chemicals not related to
sugar at all, and likely few microbes have the ability to do anything
with them. There are other 'sweet molecules' not yet on the market,
such as steveoside, which is a terpenoid, so there is probably some
microbe capable of metabolizing it too. The bottom line is that
there are many different chemotypes of sweet-tasting molecules.
Chemotypes which are sugars are not the only ones that taste sweet.
Not trying to get picky here, but it seems to me that we'd better all
be talking the same language before we can give the correct answer.
On Fri, 22 Dec 2000 11:44:17 -0500, "Gary G. Wilson"
<ggw5 at columbia.edu> wrote:
>Do bacteria metabolise the artificial sugars used in diet sodas? More
>spcifically, are diet sodas as bad for teeth as regular soda?
>Gary G Wilson
More information about the Microbio