Thread: Aspertame

National Cancer Institute?

Commie sympathizers and reprobates, I'm certain



Splenda, other sweeteners gain popularity, controversy

By LISA MARSHALL
Scripps Howard News Service
17-MAY-06

The last month has been a rough one for the makers of Splenda.

On April 3, the consumer advocacy group Citizens for Health asked the Food and Drug Administration to revoke its approval of the popular sweetener, citing consumer complaints of adverse side-effects, such as stomach pains and rashes.

Days earlier, a federal court had dismissed a lawsuit by Splenda-marketer, McNeil Nutritionals. The suit had accused the trade group, the Sugar Association, with false advertising related to its Splenda-bashing Web site, thetruthaboutsplenda.com.

Meanwhile, the presses were rolling with news of a new National Cancer Institute study concluding that aspartame (the sweetener in Equal and other products) does not increase the risk of certain kinds of cancer, as earlier reports had suggested.

The criticisms were enough to make Splenda spokesperson Michael Beckerich downright sour:

"The inaccuracies being put out there are a great disservice to the millions of people who safely use Splenda every day," Beckerich said. "We will vigorously defend the brand through all the appropriate channels."

But the news was also enough to give a calorie-counting sweet-tooth pause before grabbing for that next little pink, or blue, or yellow package. Are sugar substitutes safe after all? Are some safer than others?

Depending on who you ask, the answers are widely different.

Lisa High, a registered dietitian in Boulder, Colo., says she's not convinced by company and FDA claims that the products are safe, so she tells clients to steer clear of them, in favor of natural sweeteners like stevia, an herb, and xylitol, a plant extract.

"They are chemicals. I don't know what they are doing on a cellular level and we don't have tests to show us," High says. "Just because you can't see the effects right away doesn't mean it is safe."

Malena Perdomo, a certified diabetes educator and Latino spokesperson for the American Dietetic Association, sees it differently.

Because the body doesn't respond to artificial sweeteners as carbohydrates, they are particularly helpful to diabetics who must carefully watch their blood sugar levels, she says. She believes they are safe, in reasonable doses. As long as people don't overdo it, consuming dozens of packets a day, she recommends them.

"It's a good choice to have," she says.

Attorney James S. Turner, chairman of the board for Citizens for Health and a long-time critic of artificial sweeteners, said the group filed its petition with the FDA after hearing numerous reports by phone and on web sites of "mild to severe gastrointestinal problems in conjunction with consuming Splenda."

Turner also takes issue with Splenda's marketing campaign, which states that it is "made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar."

"It is no resemblance at all to sugar," Turner said. "This is a chlorine-treated carbohydrate."

When it comes to aspartame, Turner said he strongly questions the interpretation of the recent National Cancer Institute study which concluded that "consumption of aspartame-containing beverages does not raise the risk of hematopoietic or brain malignancies."

"The conclusions they came up with are completely unsupported by the data," said Turner. He points instead to an Italian study, published in February, which found that aspartame caused tumors in rats.

Clearly, the jury is still out on safety, but there is no doubt that Americans are gobbling up sweeteners, nonetheless. According to the Calorie Control Council, approximately 180 million Americans age 18 and older consume low-calorie/sugar-free foods and beverages _ nearly double the number a decade ago.

The AMA is also politically motivated and quite active on The Hill. Since they don't have an adequate replacement to offer the sugar-addicted public (who refuses to take personal responsibility for their own health), and lacking direct evidence (at that produced here in the USA) for culpability at present, they feel its best to continue to support the use of both Splenda and Equal.

The American Sugar Producers Association has best look over their shoulder, not at artifical sweetners, but at sugar analogs, polymers that are very slowly broken down, and now are being produced in large quantity for commercial use as an alternative to sugar and artifial sweetners in Europe and Japan. These sugar alternatives are natural, of low toxicity, and, for the most part, healthy to use when the diet contains adequate fiber (as these compounds are metabolized by distal gut fermentation microbial subpopulations).

You posted conflicting opinions, sir.

"It does seem abundantly clear that the prevailing medical opinion is, overwhelmingly, that Aspartame is completely safe."

"Clearly, the jury is still out on safety, but there is no doubt that Americans are gobbling up sweeteners, nonetheless."

Sigh, the first statement is my opinion. The second is a small portion of an article I quoted.




"You posted conflicting opinions, sir.

""It does seem abundantly clear that the prevailing medical opinion is, overwhelmingly, that Aspartame is completely safe."

"Clearly, the jury is still out on safety, but there is no doubt that Americans are gobbling up sweeteners, nonetheless.""

if you bothered to read what you post...

This is from your post:

Attorney James S. Turner, chairman of the board for Citizens for Health and a long-time critic of artificial sweeteners, said the group filed its petition with the FDA after hearing numerous reports by phone and on web sites of "mild to severe gastrointestinal problems in conjunction with consuming Splenda."

Turner also takes issue with Splenda's marketing campaign, which states that it is "made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar."

"It is no resemblance at all to sugar," Turner said. "This is a chlorine-treated carbohydrate."

When it comes to aspartame, Turner said he strongly questions the interpretation of the recent National Cancer Institute study which concluded that "consumption of aspartame-containing beverages does not raise the risk of hematopoietic or brain malignancies."

"The conclusions they came up with are completely unsupported by the data," said Turner. He points instead to an Italian study, published in February, which found that aspartame caused tumors in rats.

Clearly, the jury is still out on safety... "

Got some science to back up your position or are you too bored trying to explain this stuff to the plebeians?

Ubercoach

And a 25+ yr career scientist (the card carrying type), also a former professor, environmental and toxicology consultant, who has spent a little time with lawyers in court, as an expert witness.

I see you're a lawyer.

But you like BB King, so there's hope...

PS: your own news article cited the 2006 Italian oncology study, which you sorta glossed over in your previous posts.