A Spotlight on Black Licorice and its Darker Side

Black licorice. You either love it or you hate it. Some delight in the intense spice flavor that comes with a bite of licorice and others find it repulsive and gag at the mere scent of it. As a divisive food and old-timey treat, black licorice has a long history of being a chewy confectionery and a popular flavor for drinks and tobacco in many parts of the globe. Licorice (scientifically referred to as Glycyrrhiza glabra) is a flowering plant that comes from the legume family. Its roots contain the flavor that we know as licorice and are commonly extracted for various uses. While it shares similar flavoring compounds, it is not related botanically to anise or fennel as some may think. (though sometimes they are used instead of licorice to evoke the same flavor profile)

What makes black licorice so sweet?

The iconic scent and flavor of licorice come from a mix of different compounds, but the one that gives it most of its sweetness is glycyrrhizin (a compound that is about 50 times sweeter than sugar!) This sweetness is different than regular sugar in that it more closely resembles sweeteners like Sweet ‘n’ Low which is comprised of saccharin. Some people vehemently dislike this type of sweetness which is also known to linger on the tastebuds for longer. Many people claim to dislike how “sickeningly sweet” it is and feel that it strongly dominates whatever you taste in your mouth for many minutes even after it is consumed. Others say that their aversion comes from the glycyrrhizin tasting more bitter than sweet.

This bitterness can be attributed to herbal medicine, which licorice is also known to be useful for. There are many patented licorice-based medicines in China, where its extract is used in the treatment of bronchitis, colds, cough, and upper respiratory diseases. Glycyrrhizin, glycyrrhizinic acid, isoliquiritin, and glycyrrhizic acid are the most notable substances used for health benefits as they possess anti-cancer, anti-microbial, and anti-inflammatory properties. Excessive consumption that allows for the build-up of these compounds, however, may lead to serious adverse health effects.

Consequences of Overconsumption

Like most things in life, licorice is best enjoyed in moderation, but for more sinister reasons than you may think. Eating more than 57g of black licorice a day for at least 2 weeks could potentially cause serious health problems, such as an increase in blood pressure and an irregular heart rhythm (arrhythmia). This happens because of an excess of glycyrrhizic acid in the body. Normally your body is able to process glycyrrhizic acid into glycyrrhetinic acid, which is relatively harmless in small amounts, but when larger concentrations are present in the body, it can inhibit an enzyme that assists in converting active cortisol (the hormone that controls adrenaline) into inactive cortisone. You can imagine what too much active cortisol might do to your body, and this imbalance like this can wreak havoc on your body. 

Cortisol is a hormone that plays a role in your fight-or-flight response and is similar chemically and structurally to aldosterone, which during a stressful event can signal to the body to hold on to water if you’re dehydrated. It does this by binding to structures in the kidneys that cause sodium to be pulled from urine in order to trigger osmosis and cause water to stay in your cells. Sodium has a +1 charge, however, and if it’s taken from the urine, then another +1 charge must replace it. This is done by potassium which can then replace the sodium in the urine and be excreted from the body. Now, when cortisol is present in concentrations that are dangerously high, it can be concluded that it would cause your body to pull more sodium from your urine, and you would lose more potassium right? 

 

 

 

 

 

Cortisol (left) & Aldosterone (right)

This leads to hypokalemia or low potassium presence in blood, which can be detrimental to the muscles of your body especially one of your most essential muscles, your heart. Potassium is an ion in your body that signals a relaxation of your muscles after a contraction. If there isn’t enough potassium present in your blood, then your muscles will stay contracted, which can be especially bad for your blood vessels and your heart. This is where the increased blood pressure and arrhythmia can restrict proper oxygen flow throughout your body and cause your organs to shut down.

 

No Need to Panic

Now, of course, the chances of this happening to the average black licorice fan are very slim as long as the treat is enjoyed in moderation. Since most people wouldn’t eat 57g of black licorice every day, I think it’s safe to say that fearing death by licorice overdose won’t be found in anyone’s nightmares. All in all, black licorice is a novel sweet with an interesting chemical makeup that is loved (or hated) by many across the globe.

 

Sources:

Pastorino G, Cornara L, Soares S, Rodrigues F, Oliveira MBPP. Liquorice (Glycyrrhiza glabra): A phytochemical and pharmacological review. Phytother Res. 2018 Dec;32(12):2323-2339. doi: 10.1002/ptr.6178. Epub 2018 Aug 17. PMID: 30117204; PMCID: PMC7167772.

Wahab S, Annadurai S, Abullais SS, Das G, Ahmad W, Ahmad MF, Kandasamy G, Vasudevan R, Ali MS, Amir M. Glycyrrhiza glabra (Licorice): A Comprehensive Review on Its Phytochemistry, Biological Activities, Clinical Evidence and Toxicology. Plants (Basel). 2021 Dec 14;10(12):2751. doi: 10.3390/plants10122751. PMID: 34961221; PMCID: PMC8703329.

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/black-licorice-death

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qg76qIZ4BQ8 

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.