2 days ago
Sugar alternatives are on the rise. They might not be so sweet for the environment
Artificial sweeteners are popular in Australia, with more than one tonne of them consumed daily across the country and food manufacturers increasingly pivoting to sugar-free soft drinks and confectionery. But a new study suggests that the environment might be paying the price for the rise of popular sugar substitutes, with the alternatives building up in waterways around the world. The research, published in the Journal of Hazardous Materials, was led by University of Technology Sydney's Dr Xuan Li. Researchers examined the type and prevalence of artificial sweeteners in wastewater treatment plants across 24 countries, as well as changes in concentration and how effectively they were removed.
It found widely used sugar substitutes are not decomposing, and are turning into 'forever chemicals' that are comparable to polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in their potential harm to animals and the environment.
LISTEN TO
SBS News
14/07/2025 04:29 English
PFAS are a group of man-made chemicals commonly used in water-resistant and non-stick items. They have been identified in a growing body of research as a toxin and carcinogen with proven negative impacts on the environment and human health.
Why do sweeteners cause a problem? Unlike natural sugars, artificial sweeteners are designed to resist digestion and not be fully absorbed by the human body. For the same reason, they don't break down as easily in waterways or on the land, and can enter wastewater systems that aren't equipped to deal with them through standard treatment processes. "Whatever we are eating will eventually discharge into wastewater and become concentrated in wastewater treatment plants," Li said.
"Our treatment plants are not easily able to degrade them as well. So they will be directly discharged into the environment. And this will gradually lead to the accumulation in the environment and eventually effect all the water creatures."
Artificial sweeteners are not fully absorbed by the human body. Source: Getty / Juanmonino/iStockphoto Li said that some fish may die early as a result, and that represented a potentially big problem in the ecosystem.
"The bottom line is anything changing the fish will eventually impact the upper food chain and impact other creatures. We have found algae can be impacted, and they all of a sudden bloom, and all of a sudden die, because of the build-up of artificial sweeteners."
Were all sweeteners equally harmful? No. One product scored worst when it came to its ability to decompose (or lack thereof) — sucralose, which is marketed as Splenda in supermarkets around the world. Acesulfame, also known as Ace K, was also harder to remove and was released into the wider environment. Two other sweeteners, saccharin and cyclamate, were comparatively easy to remove from water, the study found. These four substitutes were found to be the most prevalent artificial sweeteners.
Other artificial sweeteners found in wastewater included neotame, stevia and neo hesperidin dihydrochalcone (NHDC).
What could the potential impact be? Li says its impossible to know how long it will take for the build-up of these microtoxins to have a detrimental impact on humans — and to know how severe that impact could be.
She said that while there has been much focus on PFAS in recent years, artificial sweeteners have a similar "accumulation pathway" in our environment and in drinking water, affecting organisms.
Li said more research needs to happen to determine the impact of sweeteners on our planet, ecosystem and personal health. The study calls for ongoing monitoring, tighter regulations and improved treatment technologies to reduce the potential environmental risks artificial sweeteners pose. In the meantime, Li said we each have a choice. "As consumers ourselves, we can think twice when we are trying to purchase a product," Li said. "I know artificial sweeteners can sound very tempting if you're trying to control your blood sugar level, your body weight. But the question is, do we really understand them well enough? If not, maybe the conventional sugary stuff will be a better solution."
