Igurol Reviews - (Consumer Safety...
Food & Drink3 mins ago
Artificial sweetners
20 Answers
I have recently heard that artificial sweetners can cause bladder cancer. Is there any truth in this?
Answers
1 to 20 of 20
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by bianca43. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/R isk/artificial-sweeteners
"Is there an association between artificial sweeteners and cancer?
Questions about artificial sweeteners and cancer arose when early studies showed that cyclamate in combination with saccharin caused bladder cancer in laboratory animals. However, results from subsequent carcinogenicity studies (studies that examine whether a substance can cause cancer) on these sweeteners and other approved sweeteners have not provided clear evidence of an association between artificial sweeteners and cancer in people".
"Is there an association between artificial sweeteners and cancer?
Questions about artificial sweeteners and cancer arose when early studies showed that cyclamate in combination with saccharin caused bladder cancer in laboratory animals. However, results from subsequent carcinogenicity studies (studies that examine whether a substance can cause cancer) on these sweeteners and other approved sweeteners have not provided clear evidence of an association between artificial sweeteners and cancer in people".
Hi
They are always saying this or that can give you cancer, one time they where telling you to drink plenty of water, next their telling you not to as it may cause cancer, load of baloney if you ask me.
If we where to listen to everything THEY told us we would not eat or drink anything. 1 in 3 will get cancer.
They are always saying this or that can give you cancer, one time they where telling you to drink plenty of water, next their telling you not to as it may cause cancer, load of baloney if you ask me.
If we where to listen to everything THEY told us we would not eat or drink anything. 1 in 3 will get cancer.
It's really very easy to wean yourself off sugar, then you won't want the sweet taste either in drinks or, as a bonus, in food.
Just go without for about 2 weeks and then try a drink with it in and it will taste awful.
I did this about 30 years ago and haven't used sugar since. It also made me go off pop and other sweet drinks.
Just go without for about 2 weeks and then try a drink with it in and it will taste awful.
I did this about 30 years ago and haven't used sugar since. It also made me go off pop and other sweet drinks.
Hi bianca. I'm not a doctor, I'm not a scientist, but I know quite a lot about the effects of various chemicals on the body, and to my mind, aspartame's one of the worst. This's found in diet drinks (carbonated ones), as well as in stuff like Alka Seltzers, toothpaste and lots of other commonly-used things.
Aspartame is banned in many countries abroad, but the UK still uses it.
It's made up of 3 things, one of them being methanol. It breaks down in the body into formaldehyde - which is used as an embalming fluid - and formic acid (found in ant sting poison)!
When formaldehyde enters body cells, it binds itself to proteins and DNA. Changes in DNA've been shown to've resulted from formaldehyde exposure, and so whether it causes cancer or not, I would personally steer clear of anything containing aspartame. It's used because it's 200 or more time sweeter than sugar, so a small amount goes a long way - without the calorie content - but I wouldn't want to risk the side effects!
Aspartame is banned in many countries abroad, but the UK still uses it.
It's made up of 3 things, one of them being methanol. It breaks down in the body into formaldehyde - which is used as an embalming fluid - and formic acid (found in ant sting poison)!
When formaldehyde enters body cells, it binds itself to proteins and DNA. Changes in DNA've been shown to've resulted from formaldehyde exposure, and so whether it causes cancer or not, I would personally steer clear of anything containing aspartame. It's used because it's 200 or more time sweeter than sugar, so a small amount goes a long way - without the calorie content - but I wouldn't want to risk the side effects!
Can't fault you there Ice.Maiden - you've made some very valid points.
Personally, if any sweetner should be taken off the market it should be Sucralose (Splenda). A juggernaut of a marketing machine has been employed since it's discovery in 1976 which has convinced the consumer how innocuous the compound is. The reality is that no-one knows precisely in the body what happens to sucrose that's undergone substituted chlorination. It's certainly not a "natural" product as proclaimed as it doesn't exist in nature.
Personally, if any sweetner should be taken off the market it should be Sucralose (Splenda). A juggernaut of a marketing machine has been employed since it's discovery in 1976 which has convinced the consumer how innocuous the compound is. The reality is that no-one knows precisely in the body what happens to sucrose that's undergone substituted chlorination. It's certainly not a "natural" product as proclaimed as it doesn't exist in nature.
Thank you, theprof - but isn't Splenda one of those sweeteners that CONTAINS aspartame? I'm surer I read that it was - and you're right, whatever, because many of the records from test results on these type of products were "altered" or fixed, to present it as a natural and harmless substance. Yuck!
I'll also add that it doesn't take much aspartame to start affecting teh body's DNA. I think it's disgusting that it's allowed to be used at all, but people who're on health kicks, or diabetic, are always looking for things which taste OK without teh sweetness or calories, and these companies'll do anything to make money.
I refuse to have all fizzy drinks in the house, and I'd rather drink something that contains sugar than some of the poison which's being put into stuff.
I refuse to have all fizzy drinks in the house, and I'd rather drink something that contains sugar than some of the poison which's being put into stuff.
No, Splenda does not contain aspartame Ice.Maiden. However, there are some granulated artificial sweeteners sold in jars mainly in the USA that do contain a mix of splenda, aspartame and other ingredients too such as maltodextrin.
It's always baffled me why the FDA and other bodies in the USA approved the use of Splenda and other sweeteners in consumer products. Scientists working in the industry generally forbid the use of the compounds in their own families and that alone should set the alarm bells ringing. As far as the UK and Europe are concerned, the EU has blindly been led along by the USA and lobbying by the manufacturer.
It's a truly appalling situation and we simply do not know the legacy we're leaving to our children in continuing to allow human consumption of these compounds.
It's always baffled me why the FDA and other bodies in the USA approved the use of Splenda and other sweeteners in consumer products. Scientists working in the industry generally forbid the use of the compounds in their own families and that alone should set the alarm bells ringing. As far as the UK and Europe are concerned, the EU has blindly been led along by the USA and lobbying by the manufacturer.
It's a truly appalling situation and we simply do not know the legacy we're leaving to our children in continuing to allow human consumption of these compounds.
Please excuse the typos - the keys keep sticking and i think the keyboard has a mind of its own.
Yes, I agree with you wholeheartedly.
I made a conscious decision to do my utmost to give my own children the best food and drinks possible, and as far as I can do it, I think I have.
I personally have a feeling that we're already seeing the results of what additives and other stuff can do, and yet behavioural problems are put down to everything from home environment to lack of education and money. I'm sure that has something to do with it, but I'm also just as sure that what we're being fed on, is doing something too gross to think about.
Yes, I agree with you wholeheartedly.
I made a conscious decision to do my utmost to give my own children the best food and drinks possible, and as far as I can do it, I think I have.
I personally have a feeling that we're already seeing the results of what additives and other stuff can do, and yet behavioural problems are put down to everything from home environment to lack of education and money. I'm sure that has something to do with it, but I'm also just as sure that what we're being fed on, is doing something too gross to think about.
"It's always baffled me why the FDA and other bodies in the USA approved the use of Splenda and other sweeteners in consumer products"
It's very simple once you look into it theprof & Ice.Maiden the CEO of G. D. Searle & Company that owned the patent of Aspartame when the FDA approved it's use, was Donald Rumsfeld (Secretary of Defense under G.W Bush)
The greater good of the general public comes second to money in politics. If you research, you'll find hundreds of cases like this.
It's very simple once you look into it theprof & Ice.Maiden the CEO of G. D. Searle & Company that owned the patent of Aspartame when the FDA approved it's use, was Donald Rumsfeld (Secretary of Defense under G.W Bush)
The greater good of the general public comes second to money in politics. If you research, you'll find hundreds of cases like this.
It pees me off no end Ice, it's now getting so hard to find a nice drink for my boys that doesn't contain sweeteners.
I personally like fizzy drinks, but have now been restricted to sparkling water.
Humans have had natural sugars in their diet for thousands of years and we've survived and prospered, why is it suddenly the enemy?
Perhaps it's because you can't patent a natural product?
I personally like fizzy drinks, but have now been restricted to sparkling water.
Humans have had natural sugars in their diet for thousands of years and we've survived and prospered, why is it suddenly the enemy?
Perhaps it's because you can't patent a natural product?
Well going back to aspartame again, it COULD be said that it's natural by the chemical makeup of it, but once it gets inside the body it can cause horrible damage as the methanol turns to formaldehyde. I think it's something like a "mere" 10% of methanol goes into aspartame, but that 10% is enough to damage permanently, especially when people drink lots of cola or lemonade and add it to spirits.
My own children drink NOTHING but botled water and fresh fruit juices which I make for them. Never anything fizzy or with preservatives or additives in it.
My own children drink NOTHING but botled water and fresh fruit juices which I make for them. Never anything fizzy or with preservatives or additives in it.
I am still under the hosp for bladder cancer check ups!
I had 2 tumours 5 yrs ago?
I have sweetners with my tea, and all hot drinks ---so--
I've just checked on the container label, and it says that it contains sodium saccharine. No mention of anything else added.
I'm always tired and feel rundown -- would you still take them?
I'm curious as to know if there really good to take x
maybe I should go back to sugar!
I had 2 tumours 5 yrs ago?
I have sweetners with my tea, and all hot drinks ---so--
I've just checked on the container label, and it says that it contains sodium saccharine. No mention of anything else added.
I'm always tired and feel rundown -- would you still take them?
I'm curious as to know if there really good to take x
maybe I should go back to sugar!
dabees No it'snot very simple. With all due respect, as a university professor and dean at a leading Russell Group university in the UK, I've done more research than you've had hot dinners.
Yes, the assertions you make regarding Rumsfield are correct - he was CEO of Searle from 1977 during the Aspartame years. However, I wasn't talking about aspartame - I was discussing sucralose. I realise that splenda was also synthesised at G D Searle, but the circumstances were different. Although Rumsfield was employed by the Ford administration during the initial developmental years of sucralose marketing, this matter is nowadays regarded as an urban myth in the industry.
What you may be unaware of is that the FDA had long discussions with the Ford administration about a potential conflict of interest with Rumsfield. This has continued through into the relevant subsequent presidencies. Thus G D Searle were watched very carefully by the relevant agencies throughout these years to ensure that no claims of favouritism or bias were directed towards them from outside quarters. Committees were set up that consisted of senators, scientists and laypersons to ensure that everything was above board and Rumsfield agreed to the scrutiny.
(continued)
Yes, the assertions you make regarding Rumsfield are correct - he was CEO of Searle from 1977 during the Aspartame years. However, I wasn't talking about aspartame - I was discussing sucralose. I realise that splenda was also synthesised at G D Searle, but the circumstances were different. Although Rumsfield was employed by the Ford administration during the initial developmental years of sucralose marketing, this matter is nowadays regarded as an urban myth in the industry.
What you may be unaware of is that the FDA had long discussions with the Ford administration about a potential conflict of interest with Rumsfield. This has continued through into the relevant subsequent presidencies. Thus G D Searle were watched very carefully by the relevant agencies throughout these years to ensure that no claims of favouritism or bias were directed towards them from outside quarters. Committees were set up that consisted of senators, scientists and laypersons to ensure that everything was above board and Rumsfield agreed to the scrutiny.
(continued)
How do I know this? It's simple. I sat on one such FDA
committee for a couple of years when I was over the pond as a visiting professor at a certain Ivy League university. In addition, my job even now requires that I have close contact with the FDA. I've been a technical advisor to the FDA for quite a number of years and although I play little part in marketing decisions. I am also what you might term a "go-between" in certain matters between the UK government and the FDA. I do take an interest in the methodology employed in these matters and I'm only too well aware of the safeguards that have been in place over the years.
I've met Rumsfield on four occasions and believe me, there is no evidence to show that he pushed Splenda approval through any administration. To be honest, he's a very capable lawyer, and that alone would have ensured he acted in the best interest of GD Searle.
Finally, I've overseen in vivo research on the effect of sucralose in the mammalian and human body so I've got a pretty good inside knowledge of the history of this affair.
committee for a couple of years when I was over the pond as a visiting professor at a certain Ivy League university. In addition, my job even now requires that I have close contact with the FDA. I've been a technical advisor to the FDA for quite a number of years and although I play little part in marketing decisions. I am also what you might term a "go-between" in certain matters between the UK government and the FDA. I do take an interest in the methodology employed in these matters and I'm only too well aware of the safeguards that have been in place over the years.
I've met Rumsfield on four occasions and believe me, there is no evidence to show that he pushed Splenda approval through any administration. To be honest, he's a very capable lawyer, and that alone would have ensured he acted in the best interest of GD Searle.
Finally, I've overseen in vivo research on the effect of sucralose in the mammalian and human body so I've got a pretty good inside knowledge of the history of this affair.
So why was I baffled? As far as Splenda was concerned, FDA approval was not straightforward as there were doubts over the safety of the compound. It was not unanimous approval and the debates went on for months. In effect, the compound was given the benefit of the doubt by the individual (who I know) who made the final decision and I've always been sceptical of this method of approval.
1 to 20 of 20
Latest Posts
How it Works4 mins ago
Food & Drink5 mins ago
Food & Drink5 mins ago
Crosswords14 mins ago
