Re: Re: Aspartame (and sucralose/splenda)

[Guest guest]

FWIW, the CSPI rates sucralose safe. At the time of it's ratings of sweeteners, aspartame was rated " iffy. "

On 12/1/05, berko5517 <michelleberkovitz@...> wrote:

Diane,Have you seen any indication that sucralose or Splenda are unsafe?I've turned up a lot of anecdotes with web searches, but I have no

idea whether there's any scientific support for claims that thesesweeteners are harmful. I was very reliant on sucralose (andsometimes Splenda) to get my fix for something sweet-tasting withoutthe calories until I read all the scary anecdotes about Splenda. And

I'd been wondering about occasional brief dizzy spells with noapparent cause. I'd really like to know the truth. I miss usingsucralose and Splenda.>> Folks,>> Strictly speaking, this post isn't about CR, but given that I've> recently been researching links to sources of artificial sweeteners

> for our files, I thought it might be relevant to the diets of manyof us.>> Tony forwarded me the information below that was posted today by> CRSociety's Dean Pomerleau. It's about a study that apparently

> contradicts previous studies on the safety of aspartame.>> - Diane>> First Experimental Demonstration of the Multipotential> Carcinogenic Effects of Aspartame Administered in the

> Feed to Sprague-Dawley Rats>> Morando Soffritti, Fiorella Belpoggi, e Degli> Esposti, Luca Lambertini, Eva Tibaldi, and Rigano>> Free full text:>

http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2005/8711/8711.pdf>> The Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center of the> European Ramazzini Foundation has conducted a> long-term bioassay on aspartame (APM), a widely used

> artificial sweetener. APM was administered with feed> to 8 week-old Sprague-Dawley rats (100-150/sex/group),> at concentrations of 100,000; 50,000; 10,000; 2,000;> 400; 80 or 0 ppm. The treatment lasted until natural

> death, at which time all deceased animals underwent> complete necropsy. Histopathological evaluation of all> pathological lesions and of all organs and tissues> collected was routinely performed on each animal of

> all experimental groups. The results of the study show> for the first time that APM, in our experimental> conditions, causes: 1) an increased incidence of> malignant tumor-bearing animals with a positive

> significant trend in males (p0.05) and in females> (p0.01), in particular those females treated at> 50,000 ppm (p0.01); 2) an increase in lymphomas and> leukemias with a positive significant trend in both

> males (p0.05) and females (p0.01), in particular in> females treated at doses of 100,000 (p0.01), 50,000> (p0.01), 10,000 (p0.05), 2,000 (p0.05), 400> (p0.01) ppm; 3) a statistically significant increased

> incidence, with a positive significant trend (p0.01)> of transitional cell carcinomas of the renal pelvis> and ureter and their precursors (dysplasias) in> females treated at 100,000 (p0.01), 50,000 (p0.01),

> 10,000 (p0.01), 2,000 (p0.05) and 400 ppm (p0.05);> and 4) an increased incidence of malignant schwannomas> of peripheral nerves with a positive trend (p 0.05)> in males. The results of this mega-experiment indicate

> that APM is a multipotential carcinogenic agent, even> at a daily dose of 20 mg/kg b.w., much less than the> current acceptable daily intake (ADI). On the basis of> these results, a re-evaluation of the present

> guidelines on the use and consumption of APM is urgent> and cannot be delayed.>

[Guest guest]

FWIW, the CSPI rates sucralose safe. At the time of it's ratings of sweeteners, aspartame was rated " iffy. "

On 12/1/05, berko5517 <michelleberkovitz@...> wrote:

Diane,Have you seen any indication that sucralose or Splenda are unsafe?I've turned up a lot of anecdotes with web searches, but I have no

idea whether there's any scientific support for claims that thesesweeteners are harmful. I was very reliant on sucralose (andsometimes Splenda) to get my fix for something sweet-tasting withoutthe calories until I read all the scary anecdotes about Splenda. And

I'd been wondering about occasional brief dizzy spells with noapparent cause. I'd really like to know the truth. I miss usingsucralose and Splenda.>> Folks,>> Strictly speaking, this post isn't about CR, but given that I've> recently been researching links to sources of artificial sweeteners

> for our files, I thought it might be relevant to the diets of manyof us.>> Tony forwarded me the information below that was posted today by> CRSociety's Dean Pomerleau. It's about a study that apparently

> contradicts previous studies on the safety of aspartame.>> - Diane>> First Experimental Demonstration of the Multipotential> Carcinogenic Effects of Aspartame Administered in the

> Feed to Sprague-Dawley Rats>> Morando Soffritti, Fiorella Belpoggi, e Degli> Esposti, Luca Lambertini, Eva Tibaldi, and Rigano>> Free full text:>

http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2005/8711/8711.pdf>> The Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center of the> European Ramazzini Foundation has conducted a> long-term bioassay on aspartame (APM), a widely used

> artificial sweetener. APM was administered with feed> to 8 week-old Sprague-Dawley rats (100-150/sex/group),> at concentrations of 100,000; 50,000; 10,000; 2,000;> 400; 80 or 0 ppm. The treatment lasted until natural

> death, at which time all deceased animals underwent> complete necropsy. Histopathological evaluation of all> pathological lesions and of all organs and tissues> collected was routinely performed on each animal of

> all experimental groups. The results of the study show> for the first time that APM, in our experimental> conditions, causes: 1) an increased incidence of> malignant tumor-bearing animals with a positive

> significant trend in males (p0.05) and in females> (p0.01), in particular those females treated at> 50,000 ppm (p0.01); 2) an increase in lymphomas and> leukemias with a positive significant trend in both

> males (p0.05) and females (p0.01), in particular in> females treated at doses of 100,000 (p0.01), 50,000> (p0.01), 10,000 (p0.05), 2,000 (p0.05), 400> (p0.01) ppm; 3) a statistically significant increased

> incidence, with a positive significant trend (p0.01)> of transitional cell carcinomas of the renal pelvis> and ureter and their precursors (dysplasias) in> females treated at 100,000 (p0.01), 50,000 (p0.01),

> 10,000 (p0.01), 2,000 (p0.05) and 400 ppm (p0.05);> and 4) an increased incidence of malignant schwannomas> of peripheral nerves with a positive trend (p 0.05)> in males. The results of this mega-experiment indicate

> that APM is a multipotential carcinogenic agent, even> at a daily dose of 20 mg/kg b.w., much less than the> current acceptable daily intake (ADI). On the basis of> these results, a re-evaluation of the present

> guidelines on the use and consumption of APM is urgent> and cannot be delayed.>

[Guest guest]

Hi All,

Other info is:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,176258,00.html

http://www.newsinferno.com/storypages/11-18-2005~001.html

A Nature news article on the subject is reprinted at:

aspartame/message/18904

The government may be taking the safe road.

The Nature article says:

``Other researchers say that exactly how aspartame could cause

cancer is unclear. In the body, aspartame breaks down into

two amino acids, which are components of normal food proteins,

and methanol. Methanol, although it can be toxic, is not

generally regarded as a carcinogen and is present in

common products including juice.''

Regarding the idea that you tend not to get methanol poisoning by drinking fruit

juice is because such natural products contain other protective compounds:

``Because of the high amounts of methanol in fruits/tomatoes,

enough that would clearly cause chronic methanol poisoning,

these foods must contain protective factors (as does

alcoholic beverages). If they did not contain protective

factors, we would be seeing widespread methanol poisoning

for persons who ingestion fruits and tomatoes regularly.

The manufacturer showed that the protective factor in fruits

cannot be ethanol by itself (Sturtevant 1985), but there are

a myriad of chemicals in fruits which might serve as

protective factors.''

- http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/abuse/methanol.html

Al Pater, PhD; email: old542000@...

__________________________________________

DSL – Something to write home about.

Just $16.99/mo. or less.

dsl.

[Guest guest]

Hi All,

Other info is:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,176258,00.html

http://www.newsinferno.com/storypages/11-18-2005~001.html

A Nature news article on the subject is reprinted at:

aspartame/message/18904

The government may be taking the safe road.

The Nature article says:

``Other researchers say that exactly how aspartame could cause

cancer is unclear. In the body, aspartame breaks down into

two amino acids, which are components of normal food proteins,

and methanol. Methanol, although it can be toxic, is not

generally regarded as a carcinogen and is present in

common products including juice.''

Regarding the idea that you tend not to get methanol poisoning by drinking fruit

juice is because such natural products contain other protective compounds:

``Because of the high amounts of methanol in fruits/tomatoes,

enough that would clearly cause chronic methanol poisoning,

these foods must contain protective factors (as does

alcoholic beverages). If they did not contain protective

factors, we would be seeing widespread methanol poisoning

for persons who ingestion fruits and tomatoes regularly.

The manufacturer showed that the protective factor in fruits

cannot be ethanol by itself (Sturtevant 1985), but there are

a myriad of chemicals in fruits which might serve as

protective factors.''

- http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/abuse/methanol.html

Al Pater, PhD; email: old542000@...

__________________________________________

DSL – Something to write home about.

Just $16.99/mo. or less.

dsl.