Independent Study: Are Artificial Sweeteners Really So Sweet?
Orlena Roe
You are quite literally what you eat. The foods you put in your body are broken down into minerals that are used to rebuild damaged tissues and fuel your everyday life. With that view, it might seem somewhat important to selective with what of which you choose to build yourself. Now as easy as that sounds, in our modern world we are bombarded with more food choices than we realize; organic or not organic, all-natural versus organic or even sugar free versus sweetened gum. The point is, in today's world it's a challenge to eat unprocessed food. You would think that because we have the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) we could assume that the processed foods we do eat are safe. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Many of the artificial additives have been proven to maliciously impact mammals but for various reasons, they're still acceptable to be put in food products. It is up to you, the consumer to both choose healthy choices for yourself and speak up against the dangerous additives.
Food additives are just what they sound like; they are added to food to enhance or contribute a certain flavor. There are many types of food additives ranging from natural things such as salt ranging to manmade additives like monosodium glutamate (MSG).Not all food additives are 'bad' so to say, but most of the artificial additives are not great for your body. Some are much milder than others which are extremely harmful like aspartame or saccharin. Due to the condition of the FDA at this point in time, it is difficult to determine if all of the legalized food products are really healthy and safe to eat. Because of this, it is the individuals' job to seek information on their own. The mission of this paper is to summarize dangerous food additives and help the reader become more aware of what she or he is consuming.
To really get a grasp of the artificial sweeteners, it’s important to understand some terminology. Amino acids are the building blocks for the proteins that make up our bodies. The type of amino acids and their sequence determines which protein is made. Proteins are used to provide the living being with energy. “…proteins contain within their amino acid sequences the necessary information to determine how that protein will fold into a three dimensional structure, and the stability of the resulting structure” (Biology Project). There are 20 amino acids and of those 20, the human body is only able to make 10 of them. The other 10 must be obtained from outside sources like food and without them; the result is “degradation in the body’s protein.” The 10 amino acids the body can produced are called non-essential amino acids, and then 10 that must be obtained from food are the essential amino acids (Biology Project).
It is also important to understand the position of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) because they are the people who determine if food additives are safe for the public or not. I interviewed Bill, a gentleman who’d previously worked with the FDA on various accounts. According to him, “The FDA is understaffed and underpaid although they know what’s right. They swing from too little to too much oversight of the studies with which they’re presented.” It’s very clear from him that the predominantly government funded FDA is a chaotic place because of the overworked and underpaid staff. Unfortunately, that means the FDA isn’t able to truly protect the public health. Bill also let me know that the FDA doesn’t second guess the scientist’s information. However, if there are major gaps or discrepancies in the information, they’ll question if a mistake was made. He also explained that product applications were enormous and that for one product to be approved, massive amounts of studies and paperwork had to be looked at. Considering the stressful environment of the FDA, it does a pretty good job. However, that isn’t good enough. The FDA isn’t the “bad guy”. It seems from Bill, that people who are employed there work very frustrating jobs but they also work hard. Even so, as the FDA they should be funded so that they can function more efficiently and actually protect the public from the things they are consuming.
The real problems lie in the information collected by the companies who own the artificial sweeteners and additives. Bill told me that often times companies like Monsanto (owner of the artificial sweetener saccharin) would get “third party” opinions about the safety of their product. The “third party” would consist of scientists and teams performing studies, supposedly not linked to the company at all so that the company would be gathering safety information from a neutral source. The problem is that those “third party” sources were still paid by the companies so they aren’t really from an unbiased position. A good example of this is the Comments on Toxicology:A Journal of Critical Discussion and Current Literature.This is a scientific report from the late ‘80s I got to help me with this project. The first twenty pages consists of information and studies convincing the reader that aspartame is incredibly safe. There is even one section deflecting all criticism of the sweetener. “Anecdotal reports of adverse health experiences (e.g., headaches, dizziness, seizures, skin rashes, and nausea) attributed to aspartame consumption have been reviewed extensively by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA)…The usefulness of adverse experiences data, however, is limited by various biases that affect reporting. When anecdotal medical complaint data are interpreted, numerous confounding factors, such as underlying medical conditions, medications, and other product ingredients, must be considered” (Toxology 271). It’s interesting how this report immediately yet defensively dismisses the aspartame criticism as uneducated research. What’s even more interesting is that when I flipped to the last page of the report to see the authors, they were Dr. Harriet H. Butchko and Dr. Frank N. Kotsonis of the Preclinical and Clinical Research for the NutraSweet Company. (NutraSweet is one of the companies that own aspartame.) It’s not a coincidence that the report didn’t even slightly acknowledge that there may be side affects of aspartame, and that the ones who wrote it were part of the company that owned aspartame.
Aspartame is one of the most hazardous food additives out there. It was discovered in 1965 by James Schlatter, a scientist from the G.D. Searle & Company. He was doing some experiments with amino acids to find an ulcer drug, but when he licked his finger, he found that the substance was sweet. That substance is what we now call aspartame (Mercola 38) (Hull). Aspartame is legalized by the FDA to be used in gums, gelatins and soft drinks. You also might know it under its marketing names of EQUAL © or NutraSweet © or those little yellow low calorie sweetener packets in the coffee shop.
The history of aspartame’s approval is a rather devious one. The first safety studies seemed to have disappeared. “Senior FDA scientists and consultants vigorously protested approving the release of aspartame product. Their objections were related to the following:
-Disturbing findings in animal studies (especially the frequency of brain tumors)
-Seemingly flawed experimental data
-The absence of extensive pre-marketing trials on humans using actual products containing aspartame over prolonged periods” (Mercola 38) (*Master File for FDA Hearing). A safety study done by Dr. Waismon of G.D. Searle & Company showed that of seven monkeys who were fed an aspartame and milk solution, one died and the other five had “grand mal seizures”. Another study by Dr. John Olney showed that the aspartic acid in aspartame damaged the brains of baby mice (Mercola 39) and because of that it wasn’t legalized(Food Safety).
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Thursday, September 27, 2007
"The sugar-refining industry often uses bone char (calcinated animal bones) for decolorizing. "
From Wiki.
From Wiki.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Article on Arti. Sweeteners
Opposing opinions from nutritionists on artificial sweeteners...
http://health.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=150757
http://health.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=150757
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Hopkins Lab Notes
From here -> http://www.hoptechno.com/book2.htm
Americans have been consuming saccharin for more than 100 years. It is - like so many other food additives - made from petroleum-based materials. Discovered by a Johns Hopkins University scientist in 1879, it was used initially as an antiseptic and food preservative.
70s Saccharin testing....
Two of the studies that followed only increased public health concerns. One was done in 1972 by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, the other in 1973 by FDA. In both tests, male and female rats were fed doses of saccharin from the time of weaning. The offspring of those rats were given saccharin for their entire lives. In both tests, the incidence of bladder tumors in the animals fed saccharin was considered significant. However, arguments were made that an impurity, not saccharin itself, was causing the tumors.
In February 1974, Canada's Health Protection Branch - FDA's counterpart there - began a major rat study to resolve the scientific uncertainties surrounding saccharin. The Canadian project, in which parent rats and their offspring were exposed to saccharin, focused on the effects of the suspect impurity in saccharin, orthotoluenesulfonamide (OTS). In early 1977, the study demonstrated that neither OTS nor other alleged culprits - bladder parasites and bladder stones - were causing the tumors. The substance responsible, the study showed, was saccharin.
*People revolted claiming that the amount of saccharin fed to the rats was equivalent to 800 cans of soda for a person.
*Took it out of contest, those rioting jerks.
Cyclamate
A cigarette placed almost unthinkingly on a pile of crystal powder led to the discovery of cyclamate by a University of Illinois scientist in 1937. When the scientist put the cigarette back in his mouth, he found that the powder, a derivative of cyclohexylsulfamic acid, had a sweet and pleasant taste. In the years that followed, the sweetener has endured both the sweet smell of success and the bitter taste of rejection.
That is...disgusting.
It was really popular until it was banned because of undeniable evidence of tumors in tests.
Abbott Laboratories, North Chicago, Ill., the sole U.S. producer of cyclamate, sought FDA's permission to re-market the artificial sweetener in November 1973, for use only in special dietary foods and for specific technological purposes. Abbott's petition included more than 400 toxicological reports, all completed after 1970, with assessments of cyclamate's carcinogenicity, mutagenicity (capability of producing genetic damage), and metabolism. In March 1976, the National Cancer Institute told FDA that Abbott's evidence did not establish or refute the cancer-causing potential of cyclamate. FDA concurred and informed the company that its evidence did not demonstrate "to a reasonable certainty" that cyclamate was safe for human consumption.
He tried again in the 80s to use it in combonation with other sweeteners but still got denied.
Aspartame
Following the 1983 approval for carbonated beverage use, some scientists and consumer groups charged that aspartame was a health hazard because it broke down and exposed consumers to excessive levels of methanol. At high enough levels, methanol is a poison and can cause blindness. It also is metabolized into formaldehyde, a "known carcinogen," the critics charged.
The critics maintained that decomposition of aspartame could occur - and expose consumers to possibly high levels of methanol and formaldehyde - if a beverage containing the sweetener was stored for long periods at high temperatures. FDA evaluated the charges and concluded "that the levels of methanol resulting from the use of aspartame in carbonated beverages did not pose any safety issues because they were well below levels of exposure expected to produce toxicity." It was also noted that other foods - including juices, fruits and vegetables - exposed consumers to higher amounts of methanol without adverse effects.
After evaluating the complaints, CDC reported in November of 1984 that, although some individuals may have an "unusual sensitivity" to aspartame products, the data obtained "do not provide evidence for the existence of serious, widespread, adverse health consequences attendant to the use of aspartame." Although a wide variety of symptoms were reported, CDC said most were mild and the kind that would be "common to the general populace."
Food Additive Regulations in the FDA;
The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act provides, in the now-famous Delaney Clause, tht no new food additive can be used if animal feeding studies or other appropriate tests show that it caused cancer. The Delaney Clause, however, does not apply to additives that were generally recognized by experts as safe for their intended uses. Saccharin, cyclamate and a long list of other substances were being used in foods before passage of the Delaney Clause in 1958 and were considered "generally recognized as safe" -or what is known today as GRAS. (Aspartame, on the other hand, became the first artificial sweetener to fall under the 1958 amendment's requirement for pre-marketing proof of safety because the first petition to FDA for is approval was filed in 1973.)
Americans have been consuming saccharin for more than 100 years. It is - like so many other food additives - made from petroleum-based materials. Discovered by a Johns Hopkins University scientist in 1879, it was used initially as an antiseptic and food preservative.
70s Saccharin testing....
Two of the studies that followed only increased public health concerns. One was done in 1972 by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, the other in 1973 by FDA. In both tests, male and female rats were fed doses of saccharin from the time of weaning. The offspring of those rats were given saccharin for their entire lives. In both tests, the incidence of bladder tumors in the animals fed saccharin was considered significant. However, arguments were made that an impurity, not saccharin itself, was causing the tumors.
In February 1974, Canada's Health Protection Branch - FDA's counterpart there - began a major rat study to resolve the scientific uncertainties surrounding saccharin. The Canadian project, in which parent rats and their offspring were exposed to saccharin, focused on the effects of the suspect impurity in saccharin, orthotoluenesulfonamide (OTS). In early 1977, the study demonstrated that neither OTS nor other alleged culprits - bladder parasites and bladder stones - were causing the tumors. The substance responsible, the study showed, was saccharin.
*People revolted claiming that the amount of saccharin fed to the rats was equivalent to 800 cans of soda for a person.
*Took it out of contest, those rioting jerks.
Cyclamate
A cigarette placed almost unthinkingly on a pile of crystal powder led to the discovery of cyclamate by a University of Illinois scientist in 1937. When the scientist put the cigarette back in his mouth, he found that the powder, a derivative of cyclohexylsulfamic acid, had a sweet and pleasant taste. In the years that followed, the sweetener has endured both the sweet smell of success and the bitter taste of rejection.
That is...disgusting.
It was really popular until it was banned because of undeniable evidence of tumors in tests.
Abbott Laboratories, North Chicago, Ill., the sole U.S. producer of cyclamate, sought FDA's permission to re-market the artificial sweetener in November 1973, for use only in special dietary foods and for specific technological purposes. Abbott's petition included more than 400 toxicological reports, all completed after 1970, with assessments of cyclamate's carcinogenicity, mutagenicity (capability of producing genetic damage), and metabolism. In March 1976, the National Cancer Institute told FDA that Abbott's evidence did not establish or refute the cancer-causing potential of cyclamate. FDA concurred and informed the company that its evidence did not demonstrate "to a reasonable certainty" that cyclamate was safe for human consumption.
He tried again in the 80s to use it in combonation with other sweeteners but still got denied.
Aspartame
Following the 1983 approval for carbonated beverage use, some scientists and consumer groups charged that aspartame was a health hazard because it broke down and exposed consumers to excessive levels of methanol. At high enough levels, methanol is a poison and can cause blindness. It also is metabolized into formaldehyde, a "known carcinogen," the critics charged.
The critics maintained that decomposition of aspartame could occur - and expose consumers to possibly high levels of methanol and formaldehyde - if a beverage containing the sweetener was stored for long periods at high temperatures. FDA evaluated the charges and concluded "that the levels of methanol resulting from the use of aspartame in carbonated beverages did not pose any safety issues because they were well below levels of exposure expected to produce toxicity." It was also noted that other foods - including juices, fruits and vegetables - exposed consumers to higher amounts of methanol without adverse effects.
After evaluating the complaints, CDC reported in November of 1984 that, although some individuals may have an "unusual sensitivity" to aspartame products, the data obtained "do not provide evidence for the existence of serious, widespread, adverse health consequences attendant to the use of aspartame." Although a wide variety of symptoms were reported, CDC said most were mild and the kind that would be "common to the general populace."
Food Additive Regulations in the FDA;
The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act provides, in the now-famous Delaney Clause, tht no new food additive can be used if animal feeding studies or other appropriate tests show that it caused cancer. The Delaney Clause, however, does not apply to additives that were generally recognized by experts as safe for their intended uses. Saccharin, cyclamate and a long list of other substances were being used in foods before passage of the Delaney Clause in 1958 and were considered "generally recognized as safe" -or what is known today as GRAS. (Aspartame, on the other hand, became the first artificial sweetener to fall under the 1958 amendment's requirement for pre-marketing proof of safety because the first petition to FDA for is approval was filed in 1973.)
FDA notes
Does FD&C Yellow No. 5 cause any allergic reactions?
FD&C Yellow No. 5, or tartrazine, is used to color beverages, desert powders, candy ice cream, custards and other foods. The color additive may cause hives in fewer than one out of 10,000 people. By law, whenever the color is added to foods or taken internally, it must be listed on the label. This allows the small portion of people who may be sensitive to FD&C Yellow No.5 to avoid it.
FDA Info on additives -> http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/opa-addi.html
FDA tries to get out of its responsibility... here
Because of inherent limitations of science, FDA can never be absolutely certain of the absence of any risk from the use of any substance. Therefore, FDA must determine - based on the best science available - if there is a reasonable certainty of no harm to consumers when an additive is used as proposed.
This is unclear, but is it saying that sugar salt MSG ect. are safe by default because they were being used before the Food Additive Amendment?
Under the Food Additives Amendment, two groups of ingredients were exempted from the regulation process.
GROUP I - Prior-sanctioned substances - are substances that FDA or USDA had determined safe for use in food prior to the 1958 amendment. Examples are sodium nitrite and potassium nitrite used to preserve luncheon meats.
GROUP II - GRAS (generally recognized as safe) ingredients - are those that are generally recognized by experts as safe, based on their extensive history of use in food before 1958 or based on published scientific evidence. Among the several hundred GRAS substances are salt, sugar, spices, vitamins and monosodium glutamate (MSG). Manufacturers may also request that FDA review the industry's determination of GRAS Status.
WHAT IF SOMEONE'S ALLERGIC TO SOMETHING IN THE COLLECTIVE GROUP?! DX
But some ingredients can be listed collectively as "flavors," "spices," "artificial flavoring," or in the case of color additives exempt from certification, "artificial colors", without naming each one. Declaration of an allergenic ingredient in a collective or single color, flavor, or spice could be accomplished by simply naming the allergenic ingredient in the ingredient list.
Now this is just BS. Even if there isn't scientific proof, dietary modifications for children with ADHD can never be a bad thing.
Do additives cause childhood hyperactivity?
A No. Although this hypothesis was popularized in the 1970's, well-controlled studies conducted since then have produced no evidence that food additives cause hyperactivity or learning disabilities in children. A Consensus Development Panel of the National Institutes of Health concluded in 1982 that there was no scientific evidence to support the claim that additives or colorings cause hyperactivity. However, for some children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and confirmed food allergy, dietary modification has produced some improvement in behavior. The panel said that elimination diets should not be used universally to treat childhood hyperactivity, since there is no scientific evidence to predict which children may benefit. A 1997 review published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry noted there is minimal evidence of efficacy and extreme difficulty inducing children and adolescents to comply with restricted diets. Thus, dietary treatment should not be recommended, except possibly with a small number of preschool children who may be sensitive to tartrazine, known commonly as FD&C Yellow No.5.
Ridiculous!!
Do low-calorie sweeteners cause adverse reactions?
A No. Food safety experts generally agree there is no convincing evidence of a cause and effect relationship between these sweeteners and negative health effects in humans. The FDA has monitored consumer complaints of possible adverse reactions for more than 15 years.
For example, in carefully controlled clinical studies, aspartame has not been shown to cause adverse or allergic reactions. However, persons with a rare hereditary disease known as phenylketonuria (PKU) must control their intake of phenylalanine from all sources, including aspartame. Although aspartame contains only a small amount of phenylalanine, labels of aspartame-containing foods and beverages must include a statement advising phenylketonurics of the presence of phenylalanine.
Individuals who have concerns about possible adverse effects from food additives or other substances should contact their physicians.
All Q&A things from here -> http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/foodic.html
FD&C Yellow No. 5, or tartrazine, is used to color beverages, desert powders, candy ice cream, custards and other foods. The color additive may cause hives in fewer than one out of 10,000 people. By law, whenever the color is added to foods or taken internally, it must be listed on the label. This allows the small portion of people who may be sensitive to FD&C Yellow No.5 to avoid it.
FDA Info on additives -> http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/opa-addi.html
FDA tries to get out of its responsibility... here
Because of inherent limitations of science, FDA can never be absolutely certain of the absence of any risk from the use of any substance. Therefore, FDA must determine - based on the best science available - if there is a reasonable certainty of no harm to consumers when an additive is used as proposed.
This is unclear, but is it saying that sugar salt MSG ect. are safe by default because they were being used before the Food Additive Amendment?
Under the Food Additives Amendment, two groups of ingredients were exempted from the regulation process.
GROUP I - Prior-sanctioned substances - are substances that FDA or USDA had determined safe for use in food prior to the 1958 amendment. Examples are sodium nitrite and potassium nitrite used to preserve luncheon meats.
GROUP II - GRAS (generally recognized as safe) ingredients - are those that are generally recognized by experts as safe, based on their extensive history of use in food before 1958 or based on published scientific evidence. Among the several hundred GRAS substances are salt, sugar, spices, vitamins and monosodium glutamate (MSG). Manufacturers may also request that FDA review the industry's determination of GRAS Status.
WHAT IF SOMEONE'S ALLERGIC TO SOMETHING IN THE COLLECTIVE GROUP?! DX
But some ingredients can be listed collectively as "flavors," "spices," "artificial flavoring," or in the case of color additives exempt from certification, "artificial colors", without naming each one. Declaration of an allergenic ingredient in a collective or single color, flavor, or spice could be accomplished by simply naming the allergenic ingredient in the ingredient list.
Now this is just BS. Even if there isn't scientific proof, dietary modifications for children with ADHD can never be a bad thing.
Do additives cause childhood hyperactivity?
A No. Although this hypothesis was popularized in the 1970's, well-controlled studies conducted since then have produced no evidence that food additives cause hyperactivity or learning disabilities in children. A Consensus Development Panel of the National Institutes of Health concluded in 1982 that there was no scientific evidence to support the claim that additives or colorings cause hyperactivity. However, for some children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and confirmed food allergy, dietary modification has produced some improvement in behavior. The panel said that elimination diets should not be used universally to treat childhood hyperactivity, since there is no scientific evidence to predict which children may benefit. A 1997 review published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry noted there is minimal evidence of efficacy and extreme difficulty inducing children and adolescents to comply with restricted diets. Thus, dietary treatment should not be recommended, except possibly with a small number of preschool children who may be sensitive to tartrazine, known commonly as FD&C Yellow No.5.
Ridiculous!!
Do low-calorie sweeteners cause adverse reactions?
A No. Food safety experts generally agree there is no convincing evidence of a cause and effect relationship between these sweeteners and negative health effects in humans. The FDA has monitored consumer complaints of possible adverse reactions for more than 15 years.
For example, in carefully controlled clinical studies, aspartame has not been shown to cause adverse or allergic reactions. However, persons with a rare hereditary disease known as phenylketonuria (PKU) must control their intake of phenylalanine from all sources, including aspartame. Although aspartame contains only a small amount of phenylalanine, labels of aspartame-containing foods and beverages must include a statement advising phenylketonurics of the presence of phenylalanine.
Individuals who have concerns about possible adverse effects from food additives or other substances should contact their physicians.
All Q&A things from here -> http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/foodic.html
Monday, September 17, 2007
General Notes from "Sweet Poison"
Source: http://www.sweetpoison.com/aspartame-sweeteners.html
Acesulfame K
+testing isn't thorough because most of it is performed on animals rather than humans
+animal tests indicate that it stimulates insulin which 'aggrivates' hypoglycemia, lung/breast and obscure organ tumors, and leukimia and severe respiratory affects ("even when less than the maximum dose was given")
Aspartame:
+discovered as an ulcer drug
Side Effects; 1.headache (most common)
Headache study;
Up to 11% of patients with chronic migraine headaches reported headaches triggered by aspartame; however, a double-blind challenge with three doses of 10 mg/kg given every 2 hours triggered no more headaches than did placebos in patients with vascular headaches believed to be exacerbated by aspartame. A small, double-blind 4-week trial showed an increase in frequency of headaches after ingestion of 1200 mg/d, indicating that a longer challenge period may be necessary.
2. neuropsychiatric disorders (or amplifies them)
study;
A small, double-blind crossover study of patients with major depression revealed a higher incidence of reactions in these patients compared with nondepressed volunteers after administration of 30 mg/kg for 7 days; symptoms included headache, nervousness, dizziness, memory impairment, nausea, temper outbursts, and depression. None of these conditions has been rigorously proven to be caused by aspartame, but carefully conducted double-blind challenges may be indicated in patients with histories that suggest aspartame as a cause.
Saccharin
+present in drugs
+the same amount in a child's daily dose of asprin is in a bottle of diet soda (yuck!)
+heavy use of it has been linked to bladder cancer
+ Ingestion of saccharin-adulterated milk formula by infants was associated with irritability, hypertonia, insomnia, opisthotonos, and strabismus, which resolved within 36 hours after ingestion.
Sucralose
+ Pre-approval knowledge was that it enlarged the liver and kindeys and shrunk the thymus up to %40
+Apparently the manufacturer claimed it didn't break down at all, but if this was true it wouldn't have any flavor on the tongue.
--It does break down some in the digestive system. (More research needed)
+No long term studies done for sucralose
Stevia
+harvasted from the plant asteraceae which grows in Brazil
+banned from being used normally despite toxology reports done by Japan, but is allowed in supplements
Acesulfame K
+testing isn't thorough because most of it is performed on animals rather than humans
+animal tests indicate that it stimulates insulin which 'aggrivates' hypoglycemia, lung/breast and obscure organ tumors, and leukimia and severe respiratory affects ("even when less than the maximum dose was given")
Aspartame:
+discovered as an ulcer drug
Side Effects; 1.headache (most common)
Headache study;
Up to 11% of patients with chronic migraine headaches reported headaches triggered by aspartame; however, a double-blind challenge with three doses of 10 mg/kg given every 2 hours triggered no more headaches than did placebos in patients with vascular headaches believed to be exacerbated by aspartame. A small, double-blind 4-week trial showed an increase in frequency of headaches after ingestion of 1200 mg/d, indicating that a longer challenge period may be necessary.
2. neuropsychiatric disorders (or amplifies them)
study;
A small, double-blind crossover study of patients with major depression revealed a higher incidence of reactions in these patients compared with nondepressed volunteers after administration of 30 mg/kg for 7 days; symptoms included headache, nervousness, dizziness, memory impairment, nausea, temper outbursts, and depression. None of these conditions has been rigorously proven to be caused by aspartame, but carefully conducted double-blind challenges may be indicated in patients with histories that suggest aspartame as a cause.
Saccharin
+present in drugs
+the same amount in a child's daily dose of asprin is in a bottle of diet soda (yuck!)
+heavy use of it has been linked to bladder cancer
+ Ingestion of saccharin-adulterated milk formula by infants was associated with irritability, hypertonia, insomnia, opisthotonos, and strabismus, which resolved within 36 hours after ingestion.
Sucralose
+ Pre-approval knowledge was that it enlarged the liver and kindeys and shrunk the thymus up to %40
+Apparently the manufacturer claimed it didn't break down at all, but if this was true it wouldn't have any flavor on the tongue.
--It does break down some in the digestive system. (More research needed)
+No long term studies done for sucralose
Stevia
+harvasted from the plant asteraceae which grows in Brazil
+banned from being used normally despite toxology reports done by Japan, but is allowed in supplements
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)