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 articles
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 articles
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Pharmacology 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.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Molecular Biology 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.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
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)reply
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)reply
Natural occurrence and production and Production sections
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)reply
Article (27Feb2023) Nature Medicine
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)reply
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)reply
I removed it around 40 minutes prior to your reply with
this edit on the basis of your
stevia revert reasoning
A study of over 4,000 people by the Cleveland Clinic found erythriol increased clotting risk, is this what you are disputing?
[1] From the study report: "Results revealed that erythritol made platelets easier to activate and form a clot. Pre-clinical studies confirmed ingestion of erythritol heightened clot formation." The study was partially funded by the NIH, but states the conclusions are solely those of the authors. The Cleveland Clinic reports contradict itself by saying they have determined association, not cause and effect, in spite of the quote from the article I included above.
2600:1700:B9C1:20C0:558B:1520:D225:1388 (
talk)
23:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Note that the press release from the Cleveland Clinic stated the obvious nature of primary research that this study exhibits: "The authors note the importance of follow-up studies to confirm their findings in the general population. The study had several limitations, including that clinical observation studies demonstrate association and not causation" (underlining for emphasis). The study is preliminary, and it is getting news headlines (note
WP:NOTNEWS). Because erythritol is such a common sweetening agent used in diverse food and beverage products, the finding of the study, if a fact, will be announced by a clinical or government organization - when it would be worthy to mention in the encyclopedia,
WP:MEDORG.
Zefr (
talk)
04:53, 1 March 2023 (UTC)reply
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)reply
Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2023
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
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/s41591-023-02223-9Q-Hack (
talk)
05:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Common sense approach - Acknowledge the growing body of legitimate peer-reviewed research with regard to cardiovascular and stroke risk that has been replicated in multiple studies of sugar alcohols Erythritol AND Xylitol, BUT put it in the proper context with all caveats given in the researchers' conclusions (related to study design, relative risk, dosage/kg/day, "more research is needed"). Most readers coming to this article are probably already aware of these findings, and it is just an odd and confusing experience for there to be absolutely zero mention of it in the main article.
69.249.103.131 (
talk)
18:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Corn
The first paragraph mentions corn. There is a disambiguation page on
corn. Some corn should be [ [ grain | corn ] ] (spaces inserted for clarity) and some, I suppose, [ [ maize | corn ] ]. I think this page should disambiguate "corn", but I don't know which meaning is appropriate. (Could erythritol come from both?) Editing "corn" to [ [ corn (disambiguation) | corn ] ] is a possibility, but it wouldn't help, would it? It needs someone who knows what they are talking about.
Nick Barnett (
talk)
01:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Would you
Tosha Langue? Corn starch comes from maize (
corn), not other grains (
corn), and so you would be making the decision that I said I didn't have the knowledge to make, but you said you'd make it if you were ignorant of erythritol's sources. Are you? If you are, why would you plump? Or aren't you? Do you know erythritol comes from corn starch?