Nutrition
Artificial sweeteners alter the microbiota more than natural sweeteners
|
Ainhoa Pérez
Alumni
|
|
MPH, MSc.
|
A new study published in Frontiers in Microbiology analyzes how different sweeteners, both natural and artificial, affect the gut microbiota. The results show that artificial sweeteners such as sucralose can more negatively alter microbial diversity than natural options such as stevia or xylitol.
Sustained alterations in microbial diversity and structure can lead to a pro-inflammatory environment, increased intestinal permeability, and endotoxin translocation, which is associated with an increased risk of metabolic problems such as insulin resistance and poor glucose regulation, overweight, etc. Among the limitations of the study are its ex vivo nature, the low number of donors, and the limited duration of the intervention, factors that restrict the generalization of the results and the evaluation of the sustained impact of these compounds. These results suggest that, in general, it may be better to opt for natural sweeteners. However, long-term intervention studies are needed to confirm these effects and their clinical impact. Future work should include larger samples, prolonged exposures, in vivo analyses, and functional studies of the changes observed in the microbiota.
PATHOPHYSIOLOGY AND MECHANISMS
The use of different sweeteners has grown considerably as an alternative to sugar. These compounds are generally characterized by having a very low caloric value, coupled with a high sweetening quality. We can find both artificial sweeteners such as acesulfame K, saccharin, sucralose, etc., and natural sweeteners such as rebaudioside A (steviol glycoside extracted from the stevia leaf), xylitol, etc. Although these sweeteners have a residual number of calories and are generally not metabolized by the body, this does not mean that they lack metabolic effects. Several studies have pointed out that certain sweeteners could induce alterations in the diversity of the microbiota (dysbiosis), promoting the expansion of potentially pathogenic taxa and reducing the resilience of the intestinal ecosystem. This could translate into consequences that promote metabolic pathologies.STUDY
A recent experimental study (Kidangathazhe et al., 2025) evaluated the impact of five sweeteners (sucralose, acesulfame K, rebaudioside A, xylitol, and saccharin) on the diversity and structure of the human gut microbiome using bioreactors inoculated with fecal samples from healthy donors. The bioreactors were kept under anaerobic conditions at 37°C to replicate the natural environment of the intestine, fed with an enriched medium that favored the growth of a wide variety of intestinal bacteria. Control groups (without sweeteners) and treated groups were prepared, in which one of the selected sweeteners dissolved in the medium was added. The experiment included two weeks of treatment and a follow-up period without sweeteners to observe the recovery of the microbiota.RESULTS
The results showed that sweeteners caused specific alterations in the diversity and composition of the microbiome. Sucralose and saccharin reduced bacterial diversity, with a more marked decrease for sucralose. In contrast, acesulfame K, rebaudioside A, and xylitol maintained or increased diversity, with the most pronounced effect observed with acesulfame K, although it also caused a disruption of the bacterial community, generating less connected modules and increasing the formation of "islands," which may indicate greater instability. After the sweeteners were withdrawn, most communities recovered their composition, except for the group treated with acesulfame K, in which structural alterations persisted. Sucralose favored the enrichment of Enterobacteriaceae, a potentially pathogenic group, while natural sweeteners increased the abundance of families such as Lachnospiraceae and Ruminococcaceae, linked to the production of short-chain fatty acids and intestinal health. Pediococcus disappeared with all treatments except sucralose.CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Overall, the data suggest that natural sweeteners, such as rebaudioside A and xylitol, are less disruptive to the diversity and structure of the microbiome than synthetic sweeteners. These findings are consistent with the literature linking prolonged consumption of artificial sweeteners to dysbiosis and an increased risk of metabolic and immunological alterations. Since these compounds reach the colon undigested, their effect on the microbiota depends on their chemical structure. For example, sucralose, because it contains chlorine, may exert direct bactericidal effects. In addition to changes in the abundance of specific taxa, sweeteners can alter the architecture and resilience of the community, affecting the production of key metabolites such as short-chain fatty acids, which are essential for epithelial health and immune homeostasis.Sustained alterations in microbial diversity and structure can lead to a pro-inflammatory environment, increased intestinal permeability, and endotoxin translocation, which is associated with an increased risk of metabolic problems such as insulin resistance and poor glucose regulation, overweight, etc. Among the limitations of the study are its ex vivo nature, the low number of donors, and the limited duration of the intervention, factors that restrict the generalization of the results and the evaluation of the sustained impact of these compounds. These results suggest that, in general, it may be better to opt for natural sweeteners. However, long-term intervention studies are needed to confirm these effects and their clinical impact. Future work should include larger samples, prolonged exposures, in vivo analyses, and functional studies of the changes observed in the microbiota.
#sweeteners #sucralose #acesulfame #saccharin #xylitol #stevia
References:
Kidangathazhe, A et al, 2025. Synthetic vs. non-synthetic sweeteners: their differential effects on gut microbiome diversity and function. Frontiers in Microbiology, 16, 1531131. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2025.1531131
* The news published on studies do not represent an official position of ICNS, nor a clinical recommendation.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
