It was discovered by accident in 1967, Germany by the German chemist Karl Clauss. Acesulfame K is a low-calorie sweetener, which can be often encountered together with Aspartame. It is approved by the FDA in 1988 like a sugar substitute and was authorized for consumption in different foods, instant powder drinks, chewing gums and etc. Its trade names are Sunette and Sweet One. According to a scientist H. Roberts, Acesulfame induces tumors of the lung, mammary glands, some rare formations for instance in the thymus, as well as leukemia. The conducted studies with acetoacetate, a degradation product of Acesulfame, show that it causes the rapid development of benign tumors in rats’ thyroid glands.
The studies show that this supplement causes cancer in animals, which means that it can increase the probability of disease as well as in humans.
Acesulfame is 200 times sweeter than sugar. Like saccharin, cyclamate and aspartame is not absorbed by the body and is quickly brought out from the organism. It’s widely used in the production of soft drinks, as well as mixed with aspartame.
Pros: Long shelf life, doesn’t cause allergic reactions and it’s not caloric.
Cons: Contains methyl ether which degrades the operation of the cardiovascular system, as well as asparagine acid which can also cause an excitant effect on our nervous system, and in time it can lead to addiction. Acesulfame is badly dissolved and the products which contain it are advised not to be taken by children, pregnant, and breastfeeding women.
Safe Dose: No more than 1gr. daily
Chemical Formula: C4H4KNO4S (Acesulfame K)
– 180-200 times sweeter than sugar (saccharose)
– Approximately sweet as Aspartame
– Half sweet compared to saccharin
– 1/4 of the sweetness of sucralose
Flavor Characteristics: It leaves a specific metal-bitter taste in the mouth after consuming. Usually, the flavor is removed by a supplement of sodium ferulate.
Stability: It is stable during heat treatment, as well as in the moderate acidic and alkaline environments.
Calorific Value: 0
Safety: Critics highlight the insufficiency of studies for possible carcinogenesis. Its defenders point out the lack of side effects data, as the primary evidence of safety.
Links to Studies: