|
Chemical Sweeteners The Truth about Neotame, Acesulfame-K, Sucralose and Aspartame Please go to www.dorway.com to read all the research about the dangers of artificial sweeteners.
Neotame (Now found in Adkins and Hershey's products) Neotame is the technical name for a new sweetener developed by Monsanto Chemical Corp. It is reported to be approximately 8,000 times sweeter than sugar. The chemical formula for neotame was published in the February 10, 1998 Federal Register. It is quite similar in structure to Monsanto's toxic sweetener aspartame. There have not been any legitimate, independent, long-term human studies on neotame. It has now been approved as of July 5, 2002. Neotame has similar structure to aspartame -- except that, from it's structure, appears to be even more toxic than aspartame. This potential increase in toxicity will make up for the fact that less will be used in diet drinks. Like aspartame, some of the concerns include gradual neurotoxic and immunotoxic damage from the combination of the formaldehyde metabolite (which is toxic at extremely low doses) and the excitotoxic amino acid. Given all of the suffering being caused by Monsanto's aspartame, the prudent course would be to start out with the assumption that it may cause toxic damage or cancer from long-term exposure and conduct many thorough, long-term, and independent human studies to see the effects. Even Monsanto's own pre-approval studies of neotame revealed adverse reactions. Unfortunately, Monsanto only conducted a few one-day studies in humans rather than encouraging independent researchers to obtain NIH funding to conduct long-term human studies on the effects of neotame. It is obvious to anyone who has thoroughly read the scientific literature on aspartame that 1) nearly 100% of the independent studies found problems with aspartame (Monsanto's studies never showed problems); and 2) that industry-funded studies bordered on fraudulent research (and a Grand Jury was convened because the officials wanted to pursue fraud charges). Much of industry-funded research related to other Monsanto products such as rBGH and toxic carpeting is similarly deceptive and poorly designed. In addition, a "research" organization led by one of Monsanto's close business parters was caught hiding a reaction-causing substance in beverages given to control groups in double-blind studies. (They did this for 13 years!) Given all of the problems with aspartame industry research and scientific abuse, it is clear that any neotame research that Monsanto, industry groups, or consultants or research friends of Monsanto have any part of should be rejected until which time more trustworthy, independent research can be conducted. Such experiments should include independent animals studies and especially long-term (e.g., 4-5 years+) human studies in various susceptible population groups. What is likely to happen, however, is: Monsanto's subsidiary, the FDA, will accept Monsanto research as if it were legitimate. Monsanto will given money to their research consultants at various institutions (rather than NIH funding of truly independent researchers) to repeat poorly designed tests and "confirm" neotame safety. This is what they did with aspartame so that they could claim safety. The FDA and Monsanto will claim that "comprehensive" research [by Monsanto consultants] at various institutions proves that neotame is safe. There will be alot of press releases, PR statements from their friends in the research community, and from organizations they fund (e.g., IFIC, ADA, etc.). This will be a time of a massive PR blitz. The FDA will claim to track adverse reaction reports. But they made the same claim when they told people that had received only 16 aspartame toxicity reaction reports in 1996, but refused to tell people that they stopped taking such adverse reaction reports in early 1996. Acesulfame-K From the book SAFE FOOD by Michael F. Jacobson, Ph.D, Lisa Lefferts and Anne Garland "Acesulfame K, sold commercially as Sunette or Sweet One, was approved by the FDA in 1988 as a sugar substitute in packet or tablet form, in chewing gum, dry mixes for beverages, instant coffee and tea, gelatin desserts, puddings and nondairy creamers. The manufacturer has asked the FDA to approve acesulfame K for soft drinks and baked goods. The public is waiting for an artificial sweetener that is unquestionably safe. But this one isn't it. Even compared to aspartame and saccharin (which are afflicted with their own safety publems - see below), acesulfame K is the worst. The additive is inadequately tested, the FDA based its approval on tests of acesulfame K that fell short of the FDA's own standards. But even those tests indicate that the additive causes cancer in animals, which means it may increase cancer risk in humans. In l987, CSPI urged the FDA not to approve acesulfame K, but was ignored. After the FDA gave the chemical its blessing, CSPI urged that iat be banned. The FDA hasn't yet ruled on that request."
Splenda, also known as sucralose, is artificial sweetener which is a chlorinated sucrose derivative. Facts about this artificial chemical follows: Pre-Approval Research Pre-approval research showed that sucralose caused shrunken thymus glands (up to 40% shrinkage) and enlarged liver and kidneys. The manufacturer put forth two arguments in an attempt to claim that sucralose is not toxic: The dose of sucralose in the experiments was high. However, for chemicals that do not have generations of safe use, the dosage tested must be adjusted for variations in potential toxicity within the human population and between humans and rodents. In order to this, toxicologists estimate a variation of effects in the human population of 10 times. In other words, one person may not have effects until a dose of 10 mg per kg of body weight (10 mg/kg) is reached, while another person may have chronic toxicity effects at 1 mg per kg of body weight (1 mg/kg). In addition, it is well known that many chemicals are much more toxic in humans than in rodents (or even monkeys). For example, the chemicals that the sweetener aspartame breaks down into vary from 5 to 50 times more toxic in humans than in rodents. Therefore, toxicologists estimate a further 10 times the dose for differences between human and rodent toxicity for a total of 100 times (10 * 10). In order to estimate a potential safe dose in humans, one must divide the lowest dose in given to rodents that was seen to have any negative effects on their thymus glands, liver or kidneys by 100. That dose is then known as the maximum Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) for lifetime use. Keep in mind that the TDI is just an estimate. Some chemicals are much more than 10 times more toxic in humans than in rodents (or will cause cancer in humans in low-dose, long-term exposure and do not cause cancer in rodents at all). A person ingesting the TDI for some chemical may find that it causes cancer or immune system or neurological problems after many years or decades of use. So, if the manufacturer claims that the dose was equivalent to 50 diet sodas, then the TDI would be one half (1/2) of a diet soda, and even that dose may or may not be safe. The manufacturer claimed that the sucralose was unpleasant for the rodents to eat in large doses. They said that starvation caused the shruken thymus glands. From the New Scientist (23 Nov 1991, pg 13): [Toxicologist Judith] Bellin reviewed studies on rats starved under experimental conditions, and concluded that their growth rate could be reduced by as much as a third without the thymus losing a significant amount of weight (less than 7 percent). The changes were much more marked in rats fed on sucralose. While the animals' growth rate was reduced by between 7 and 20 percent, their thymuses shrank by as much as 40 percent. Recent Research Sucralose Breaks Down Independent, Long-Term Human Research Chlorinated Pesticides Conclusion Addendum (October 2, 2000) Let me start by saying that, as you may know, there is a quickly growing body of evidence demonstrating the toxicity of aspartame. This includes: Recent European research showing that ingesting aspartame leads to the accumulation of formaldehyde in the brain, other organs and tissues (Formaldehyde has been shown to damage the nervous system, immune system, and cause irreversible genetic damage in humans.)
There is no monitoring of health effects. It took government agencies decades to agree that there were countless thousands of deaths from tobacco. Why? Simply because there had been no monitoring or epidemiological studies. Without such monitoring and studies, huge effects can easily go unnoticed. So, without even addressing the pre-approval research showing potential toxicity, it is clear that sucralose has a) no long history (e.g., decades) of safe use, b) no independent monitoring of health effects, c) no long-term human studies, and d) no independent human studies. I would hope that the Precautionary Principal, now commonly used in Europe, would be a guiding force for people who are interested in health. Otherwise, we might as well just use any poorly-tested, artificial (lab-created) chemical that has shown potential for long-term toxicity. As far as the pre-approval research related to sucralose.... As you probably know, pre-approval research is rarely published. It is only available from the FDA by filing a Freedom of Information Act request. However, you can see a very short summary regarding sucralose and shrunken thymus glands in the "New Scientist" (23 November 1991, page 13). It is very important that people who have any interest in their health stay aware from the highly toxic sweetener, aspartame and other dangerous sweeteners such as sucralose (Splenda), and acesulfame-k (Sunette, Sweet & Safe, Sweet One). Aspartame In 1997 there was an increase in aspartame users reporting severe toxicity reactions and damage such as seizures, eye damage and vision loss, confusion, severe migraines, tremors, depression, anxiety attacks, insomnia, etc. In the same years, Ralph Walton, MD, Chairman, The Center for Behavioral Medicine showed that the only studies which didn't find problems with aspartame where those funded by the manufacturer (Monsanto). Given the agreement amongst independent scientists about the toxicity of aspartame, the only question was whether the formaldehyde exposure from aspartame caused the toxicity. That question has now been largely answered because of research in the late 1990s. The following facts shown by recent scientific research: Aspartame (nutrasweet) breaks down into methanol (wood alcohol). Methanol quickly converts to formadehyde in the body. Formaldehyde causes gradual and eventually severe damage to the neurological system, immune system and causes permanent genetic damage at extremely low doses. Methanol from alcoholic beverages and from fruit and juices does not convert to formaldehyde and cause damage because there are protective chemicals in these traditionally ingested beverages. The most recent independent research in Europe demonstrates that ingestion of small amounts of aspartame leads to the accumulation of significant levels of formaldehyde (bound to protein) in organs (liver, kidneys, brain) and tissues. Excitotoxic amino acids such as the one which is immediately released from aspartame likely increases the damage caused by the formaldehyde. Readers are urged to followup by printing and reading the extensive and heavily-referenced discussion related to aspartame and methanol/formaldehyde poisoning (suitable for scientists and laypersons) at: http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/abuse/. This document details the research showing formaldehyde toxicity from aspartame and demonstrates the techniques the manufacturer used to help hide these facts. Toxicity Effects of Aspartame Use Selection of adverse effects from short-term and/or long-Term use Note: It often takes at least sixty days without *any* aspartame or nutrasweet to see a significant improvement. Improvement in health is also often accompanied by weight loss. Check all labels very carefully (including vitamins and pharmaceuticals). Look for the word "aspartame" on the label and avoid it. (Also, it is a good idea to avoid "acesulfame-k" or "sunette.") Finally, avoid getting nutrition information from junk food industry PR organizations such as IFIC or organizations that accept large sums of money from the junk and chemical food industry such as the American Dietetic Association.
Aspartame Disease Mimmicks Symptoms or Worsens the Following Diseases
|
