Sucralose is not an artificial flavour?

[Twinbird24]

I was looking at the label for a bottle of SunnyD and it said it "Contains Sucralose" and then right underneath it is says "No Artificial Flavours Added." Isn't sucralose an artificial flavour?

On a side-note: I think SunnyD tastes terrible and is nothing like real orange juice.

[insane_alien]

its classed as a sweetner rather than a flavourer for some strange reason. i always thought of sweet as a subset of the supergroup flavour.

 

to be honest, it doesn't much matter though. and at least the artificial stuff has to be held to a rigorous standard while all this 'organic' crap can be infested with all sorts of crap and still be okay to sell.

[StringJunky]

Splenda, the brand name for sugar-derivative sucralose, is converted from cane sugar to a no-calorie sweetener. It isn’t recognized as sugar by the body and therefore is not metabolized. Splenda is marketed as a “healthful” and “natural” product since it is derived from sugar. However, its chemical structure is very different from that of sugar and sucralose is actually a chemical substance. Sucralose was discovered in 1976 by researchers working under the auspices of Tate & Lyle Ltd., a large British sugar refiner. Sucralose is made from sucrose by substituting three chlorine atoms for three hydroxyl groups to yield 1,6-dichloro-1,6-dideoxy-BETA-D-fructofuranosyl-4-chloro-4-deoxy-alpha-D-galactopyranoside. This is accomplished in a five-step process. Prolonged storage, particularly at high temperatures and low pH, causes the sucralose to break down into 4-chloro-4-deoxy-galactose (4CG) and 1,6-dichloro-1,6-dideoxyfructose (1,6 DCF).

 

http://tuberose.com/Sucralose.html

[Horza2002]

I guess this is depending on how you are defining artificial. As StringJunky has pointed out, sucralose is based on a natural product and so might be considered natural even though you have altered the structure; its most probably a legal definition that is different to that used by scientists to describe a natural substance. I think also it is classed as a sweetener and not a flavoring.

[StringJunky]

I guess this is depending on how you are defining artificial. As StringJunky has pointed out, sucralose is based on a natural product and so might be considered natural even though you have altered the structure; its most probably a legal definition that is different to that used by scientists to describe a natural substance. I think also it is classed as a sweetener and not a flavoring.

 

I think it is a chemically modified natural product. An 'artificial' product would one made from the ground up with base chemicals wouldn't you think? Is that how a chemist would see it or would Sucralose be classed as artificial as well?

[Horza2002]

Im a chemist and I would says for it to be natural, you would have to find it in nature somewhere. Even if its a modified natural product, I would say that its artifical as its not natural anymore...thats how I personally see it

[StringJunky]

Im a chemist and I would says for it to be natural, you would have to find it in nature somewhere. Even if its a modified natural product, I would say that its artifical as its not natural anymore...thats how I personally see it

 

On reflection, I think you are right...if it's not found in Nature it's not natural otherwise definitions of it can get a bit murky and meaningless. Natural conjures up specific associations in my mind and 'modification' isn't one of them!

Edited February 8, 2011 by StringJunky

[CharonY]

AFAIK regulations stipulate that natural products are extracts from natural sources. However, salt and sugar are generally not regulated. Regulation-wise it may be a grey area.

Outside of regulatory rules, they would be considered artificial, though.

[John Cuthber]

No plants, fungi or algae produces sucralose and the only animal that makes it is us.

There's no way it can be described as "natural" without debasing the word.

[Horza2002]

It appears that the general consencus is that its not a natural product. It would therefore appear that they are classing it as a sweetener and not a flavouring

[Twinbird24]

Thanks for all the info. I too think that sucralose is artificial (not exactly natural).

[sweetguy]

Sucralose is not artificial flavour, it is artificial sweetener. About 320 to 1,000 times as sweet as sucrose, twice as sweet as saccharin, and three times as sweet as aspartame. It is stable under heat and over a broad range of pH conditions. Therefore, it can be used in baking or in products that require a longer shelf life. The commercial success of sucralose-based products stems from its favorable comparison to other low-calorie sweeteners in terms of taste, stability, and safety.

for more info about sucralose: links deleted

Edited July 21, 2016 by swansont
advertising

[swansont]

Sucralose is not artificial flavour, it is artificial sweetener. About 320 to 1,000 times as sweet as sucrose, twice as sweet as saccharin, and three times as sweet as aspartame. It is stable under heat and over a broad range of pH conditions. Therefore, it can be used in baking or in products that require a longer shelf life. The commercial success of sucralose-based products stems from its favorable comparison to other low-calorie sweeteners in terms of taste, stability, and safety.

 

for more info about sucralose: links deleted

 

 

!

Moderator Note

Advertising is against our rules. Surely you can post information about saccharin and sucralose without linking to a corporate website

[Strange]

However, its chemical structure is very different from that of sugar and sucralose is actually a chemical substance.

 

 

Er, what!? Sugar is "actually a chemical substance". As are water and air.

Edited July 21, 2016 by Strange