Talk:Erythritol

message: To avoid toxicity and side-effects. You can assume it is mostly eaten with food as a sweetener.
--ee1518 (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I reworked the section on uses, adding absorption and tolerance levels with this edit. EFSA scientific panels have studied the tolerance and safety levels submitted by applicants for food and beverage uses in the EU, giving them a multinational view of available science. 1.6% of a given product, or 0.78 grams per kg body weight are the upper threshold levels for erythritol in adults, according to the EFSA review cited. The FDA has concluded erythritol is generally safe, listing these documents. To my knowledge, there are no assessments of lifetime "exposure", but the safety data can be interpreted that erythritol is safe if used below amounts that cause GI upset. --Zefr (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  How much erythritol one can eat per day (and per meal) safely, if a healthy adult human consumes it for lifetime? 

message: does it have a flavour as Stevia does? 88.148.0.7 (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  It is much better.  Unfortunately, for me, the negative G.I. effect rate is about 6 g (for 90 kg). HillbillyWoman (talk) 20:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  flavour 

message: From the Belgica antarctica article: To adapt to the cold temperatures, B. antarctica accumulates trehalose, glucose, and erythritol. Is this common for insects, and maybe other animals? Prevalence  04:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Occurs naturally in animals? 

message: The CAS No entry will have to retain its red cross because the inchikey is wrong
The entry for Erythritol at https://commonchemistry.cas.org/detail?cas_rn=149-32-6 has
*UNXHWFMMPAWVPI-ZXZARUISNA-N
*UNXHWFMMPAWVPI-ZXZARUISSA-N
Wheras this is from chemspider, pubchem, and when calculated from the inchi. So it is looking as if CAS Common Chemistry has a wrong value.  Will they correct it if they are contacted? I have contacted them to see what happens. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: CAS No

message: There is one section called Natural occurrence and production and another called Production. Should these two sections be merged in some kind of way? --Incendio2348 (talk) 00:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Natural occurrence and production and Production sections 

message: The artificial sweetener erythritol and cardiovascular event risk. 
‘Our findings reveal that erythritol is both associated with incident MACE risk and fosters enhanced thrombosis. Studies assessing the long-term safety of erythritol are warranted.’ 174.93.216.29 (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The article was also cited here. Jarble (talk) 07:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Editor @BenHeideveld added info about the study, it was reverted by @Gugrak, (probably lack of citations, but no reason was provided, and I added the edit by BenHeideveld back with citations with this edit. P37307 (talk) 10:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This study is primary research and news - see WP:MEDASSESS. It is not a WP:MEDRS review, clinical statement,  or final confirmed effect of erythritol, which would be determined by a regulatory agency, such as the FDA or European Food Safety Authority. Until/Unless we have that kind of regulatory review, it is not a source for use in the article. Zefr (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it around 40 minutes prior to your reply with this edit on the basis of your stevia revert reasoning 
here. P37307 (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

text: Absurd!"worthy"?? Wow, that is just sad. Since the Nature finding is noteworthy (I can cite 100's of mentions of it from 'authoritative' news sites), the issue isn't one of it being "worthy" but whether it is correct. The sample size was not huge, but not just a few dozen patients, either. I am ignorant of the forms that have to be filled out, and the hoops that have to be jumped through for a medical finding to get incorporated into WP, but setting the bar too high is worse than setting it too low. I am not arguing that Witkowski, et al are correct, nor that the findings show cause and effect. What I am arguing is that the findings deserve to be noted (perhaps that is *exactly* what is needed, a note?) in this article. It could be that peer review shows some serious flaw in methodology, analysis, or data, but replication is, probably, years away. It is not reasonable to wait for replication, nor to wait for some slow, bureaucratic and political body to make the decision to "do something about it". Facts aren't dependent on authority, consensus, majority, or plurality. The problem is a moral/ethical one. If, by not including mention of a potentially LIFE-THREATENING issue with erythritol as a non-caloric FOOD additive (not medicine), WP contributes to one adverse event, then WP has lost its moral compass. If the editors of this article don't see that, then it is unfortunate. Look at it this way, even if, 5 years from now, the various attempts to replicate it fail to confirm it, the finding will still be "worthy" to mention as a historical fact. So, seems to me there's three options: 1. Add mention of it to history section, add a note in the safety discussion, or add a Risk Controversy (or the like) section.174.130.71.156 (talk) 05:14, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article (27Feb2023) Nature Medicine 

message: Suggest adding a statement in the "Uses, absorption, and safety" section:
There is a study published in nature medicine that shows a link between erythritol and cardiovascular event risk. 
Witkowski, M., Nemet, I., Alamri, H. et al. The artificial sweetener erythritol and cardiovascular event risk. Nat Med (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-023-02223-9 Q-Hack (talk) 05:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2023 

message: A lot of articles raising concern about possible heart attacks and strokes found in a recent study. 
Should this be added to the article?
https://newsroom.clevelandclinic.org/2023/02/27/cleveland-clinic-study-finds-common-artificial-sweetener-linked-to-higher-rates-of-heart-attack-and-stroke/ 38.94.252.30 (talk) 15:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it should not be added yet. We need to wait for confirming studies and then review articles, see WP:MEDRS. - MrOllie (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

text: See discussion Talk:Erythritol#Article_(27Feb2023)_Nature_Medicine above. It goes into detail as to why it should not be added to the article yet. P37307 (talk) 16:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

text: Its been reported as as a confirmed link. https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/27/health/zero-calorie-sweetener-heart-attack-stroke-wellness/index.html 184.184.116.196 (talk) 20:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  New concerns about heart attack and stroke