Talk:Saccharin

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Food and Drink task list:

To edit this page, select here

Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:

Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt
Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar
Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish
Participate in project-related deletion discussions.
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested images of food
Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section

Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.

Chemicals High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Russia: Technology & engineering Low‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the technology and engineering in Russia task force.

This article was the subject of an educational assignment that ended on Spring 2007.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Quantifying sweetness

how can one substance be "300 times sweeter" than another? how can you objectively quantify sweetness?

bodnotbod provided this link in the Talk page for Aspartame: Basic_taste#Sweetness. The Wikipedia page on Sweetness may help, too. --Joe Sewell 30 June 2005 16:10 (UTC)

Well, double trouble, the article on Sweetness says Saccharin is 510 (and not 'about' 300) times sweeter than Sugar....

Molecular drawing

Could someone who is conversant in chemestry please check the molecular drawing for accuracy? It is based on the previous image of the molecule, but I'm a graphic artist who hasn't studied chem in years...

   Looks good to me.  It matches what's on chemfinder, and the structure itself makes sense.

== Cyclamate was avThe article states that saccharin ban was protested because it was the only sweetener at the time but ... cyclamate is known from the 1930s, init? -- Ah yes. Cyclamate was banned too. ailable? ==

This article ignores some important studies

See the paragraph "Smoldering Battle Over Saccharin Heats Up" in http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol278/issue5339/s-scope.dtl#top. There is also the webpage http://www.cspinet.org/reports/saccomnt.htm provided in the External Links section. These webpages mention studies that are not properly reported in the article. For example, consider the following paragraph in the article:

"Many studies have since been done on saccharin, with some showing a correlation between saccharin consumption and increased cancer (especially bladder cancer) and others showing no such correlation. The notorious and influential studies of the kind published in 1977 have been criticized for the ridiculously high dosages of saccharin that were given to the test subject rats; dosages were commonly hundreds of times higher than "normal" ingestion expectations would be for a consumer. No study has ever shown health risks in humans at normal doses. Furthermore, the biological mechanism believed to be responsible for the rat cancers has been shown to be inapplicable to humans because of differences in urine composition between rats and humans."

The second sentence suggests that the studies mentioned in the first sentence are ridiculous. The first two sentences are separately accurate, but the overall message is wrong. This is what is called insinuation, and it is against the Neutral Point Of View policy. Moreover, studies done after 1977 explain that the argument in the remainder of the paragraph is flawed (see the webpages that are cited just above). Moreover the sentence "No study has ever shown health risks in humans at normal doses." is not sourced, and should be removed in accordance with the WP:verifiability policy. In fact, the studies that are reported in the above webpages mention that some correlation has been shown between cancer and consumption of saccharin and other chemical sweeteners in the population. It is natural that many epidemiological studies do not consider saccharin alone because most commercial sweeteners mixe different chemicals (e.g. cyclamate and saccharin). Here is a quote:

"Numerous case-control studies have sought to evaluate the relationship between artificial-sweetener consumption (saccharin and cyclamate were generally used together) and the incidence of bladder cancer. Several studies, including some of the largest ones, found significant increases in rates of bladder cancer.

National Cancer Institute (3,010 total cases) found relative risks of between 1.6 and 3.0 in several subgroups of Americans, including low-risk white females and heavy-smoking males.
Morrison (555 British cases) found an increased risk (RR = 2.3) in British females (but not males or Japanese cases) who consumed more than 10 tablets of sugar substitutes (primarily saccharin) a day."

The study of the National Cancer Institute and the study of Morrision that are mentioned just above are two of many epidemiological studies on artificial sweeteners (see above webpages) --Lumière 03:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While this is an old discussion, and though it appears that this user has long since packed his bags and left, I thought I'd comment here, since I've made changes relevant to this topic. The way the article was worded was a bit disingenuous, and I've clarified it so it says no study has found a causal relationship between saccharin consumption and health risks (and I doubt such a study would ever be done for ethical reasons ). However, to deemphasize the debate is also disingenuous, since there is still debate on this issue in the scientific community (see the IARC link in the text for some reaons why the human studies may not be of any value, or if you can, the article mentioned in the PubMed abstract, for arguements why the rat studes were flawed).Gershwinrb 07:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why the article on saccharine does not mention the recent studies:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6843803/

? 194.230.147.125 (talk) 16:58, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is the link below my post? The link does not work. 194.230.147.125 (talk) 21:55, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saccharin was de-listed from the National Toxicology Program's listing of carcinogenic substances in 2006, 11th Review. http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/index.cfm?objectid=72016262-BDB7-CEBA-FA60E922B18C2540

Synthesis Corrections

The section under "Chemistry" discussing the Remsen & Fahlberg synthesis contains some minor errors. The intermediate o- and p-chlorosulfones (not chlorosulfonic acids as stated in the text) and the o-sulfonamide include too many oxygens on the sulfur atom. Those substituents should read "SO₂Cl" and "SO₂NH₂" respectively. The original creator of the image would be able to make this correction more quickly than I would, but if there's no response in a couple of days, I'll make a new figure. Nllewellyn (talk) 02:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC) Could somebody please fix a structure in the Maumee synthesis? The product of the treatment of the diazonium with sulfur dioxide had an aqueous workup which resulted in the sulfonic acid, not the depicted sulfinic acid. Meaning, could somebody please change the SO2H to SO3H? Reference 40 has this wrong as well, probably just a typo back then. See ref https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ciuz.201100574 for a correct depiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.102.10.167 (talk) 05:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Relatedly, saccharose is an obsolete name for sucrose (table sugar)." ????

1) since when? 2) like where? (is this the case when some local habit in the USA is thought to be the directive for the rest of the world? see adrenaline, for example. You can't replace the use of the word adrenaline with epinephrine in europe, ever, because it would not make any sense. Is it only a matter of time when someone will state that the phrase "makes my blood boil" has been obsoleted and you should say "the saturaded vapour pressure of my hemolymph has reached or exceeded the pressure of the external atmosphere"...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.64.19.60 (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]