Artificial Sweeteners Are NOT Bad: Curb the Hysteria
74I commented thoughtfully, in detail, and with supporting evidence on another hub "Artificial Sweetener Are Bad" (grammar error belongs to the author, not me). Well, I tried to anyway. I worked for an hour to post good information and the author just denied my comments because I contradicted (and demonstrated as false) his position. So what am I to do but make my own hub with correct information. I recommend to all hubbers you use your rating and comment moderation privileges to improve hubpages and police inflammatory posts and spam, not as tools to silence opposition and falsely prop up your own positions as uncontested. Especially when your opposition has the wonderful democratic resource to take the challenge to open forum, like I'm doing here.
- Saccharin Safety
"No chemical additive for food has been tested in as many laboratories, for as long a period, in as many species of animals (including man) and in successive generations, and yet has been found to be as innocuous as saccharin." - U.S. Report Adds to List of Carcinogens
New York Times article discussing the 2000 government report which added 14 products to the list of suspected carcinogens, and *delisted* saccharin. - Artificial Sweeteners and Cancer: Questions and Answers
The National Cancer Institute refutes the flawed studies that tried to link sweeteners and cancer, and makes it clear no clinical evidence exists to support that thesis. - Artificial Sweeteners: No Calories ... Sweet!
U.S. Food and Drug Administration declaration of the safety of artificial sweeteners and the erroneous link with cancer in humans.
Cancer?
- From his hub: "Saccharin creates a slightly increased risk of bladder cancer in humans. Products containing saccharin are required to carry a warning label regarding the cancer risk."
"According to the National Cancer Institute, further studies showed that saccharin did not cause cancer in humans, and that the bladder tumors in rats were related to a mechanism that isn't relevant for humans.
"In 2000, the National Toxicology Program determined that saccharin should no longer be listed as a potential cancer-causing agent. Federal legislation followed in 2001, removing the requirement for the saccharin warning label." -U.S. Food and Drug Administration
- From his hub: Early tests showed that aspartame may have caused an increased incidence of brain tumors in rats. (Other animals tested showed no tumors.)
"According to FDA experts, there is no scientific evidence supporting a link between aspartame and any type of cancer. The National Toxicology Program, part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, also conducted aspartame studies in mice and found no cancer link." -U.S. Food and Drug Administration
The links between artificial sweeteners and cancer in humans is all hysteria over outdated and misinterpreted data, and has no all been debunked. There is *no* scientific evidence that any artificial sweeteners have *any* health risks. None except saccharin have ever carried any governmental warning labels, and as I quoted from the FDA the warning about potential cancer from saccharin was removed in 2001 when the lab rat studies were found to be flawed. (The increased cancer risk found in rats is a function of rat biology and the same elevated risk cannot occur in humans. There is no further evidence that saccharin increases risk of cancer in humans.)
To reiterate, there is *ZERO* accepted clinical evidence that artificial sweeteners of any kind pose any health risk at all to humans. It is mere superstition and paranoia to believe otherwise.
- Experts Now Say, "It's the Sugar, Stupid"
“The problem is that with sugar, you’re getting a very large number of calories with a comparatively small volume of food. And we know that calories do count.” - Overdoing Dietary Sugar is No Sweet Deal for Your Body
Research shows that while we so painstakingly avoided fats, Americans’ consumption of sugar has increased by 30 percent over the last couple decades. - US sugar barons 'block global war on obesity'
"Leading scientists accused the Bush administration last night of putting the interests of powerful American sugar barons ahead of the global fight against obesity." - A Regular Soda a Day Boosts Weight Gain
Non-Diet Drinks Also Increase Risk of Diabetes, Study Shows - Sugary beverages fuel the obesity epidemic, from the Harvard Health Letter
- Drink More Diet Soda, Gain More Weight?
WebMd article explores tentative clinical link between diet soda consumption and weight gain, and finds the data inconclusive and even side with the likelihood that there is no link.
*Sugar* is better!?
- From his hub: Although artificial sweeteners have no calories, they have no nutritive value either. Bottom line: Most people probably would be better off using moderate amounts of sugar. One teaspoon of sugar contains fewer than 25 calories. Used in moderation, its only adverse effect (except in people with diabetes and some other medical conditions) is to promote tooth decay, which is easily preventable and treatable.
Sugar is *not* safe. In excess, sugar adds many empty calories to one's diet and is a significant contributor to the American obesity epidemic. It is the primary culprit in tooth decay. Consuming a suger-rich food causes spikes in blood sugar levels, which force the body to flood itself with excessive amounts of insulin to clear the sugar. When this happens regularly this process leads to insulin resistance and can eventually develop into diabetes, and the blood sugar drop following the spike also produces false hunger signals which can lead to further overeating hours after consuming the sugar.
Artificial sweeteners have none of these deliterious effects. You cannot gain weight from them because they contain no calories. They do not erode tooth enamel. They do not directly impact blood sugar and are therefore safe for diabetics and do not cause sugar "rushes" or "crashes", nor do they promote feelings of hunger leading to unecessary eating.
Sugar is a far more recognized dietary evil that any artificial sweetener.
 | Amazon Price: $2.99 |
 | Amazon Price: $34.59 List Price: $47.00 |
 | Amazon Price: $4.22 List Price: $7.99 |
 | Amazon Price: $6.49 List Price: $15.95 |
There are plenty of ways to make artificial sweteners taste great
 | Amazon Price: $3.63 List Price: $16.00 |
 | Amazon Price: $7.73 List Price: $15.99 |
 | Amazon Price: $12.99 |
 | Amazon Price: $10.82 List Price: $20.00 |
Bad Taste
Artificial sweeteners do not taste like sugar, that's true, and many people dislike some or all of the flavors of the different brands. But that is a matter of taste and acclimation. My mother noticed my and my brother's excessive soda intake when we were children, and switched us to strictly diet soda (which was pretty progressive of her considering diet sodas were far from mainstream when she switched us in the begining of the 80s). I grew up with saccharin- and then aspartame-flavored drinks, and to this day I prefer the taste of artificial sweeteners to sugar in all drinks (soda, coffee, tea, Kool-Aid -- everything).
My girlfriend and her son hate the taste of diet sodas, but they both grew up without ever having any diet soda at all. To palattes accustumed to the distinct flavor and quality of sugar of course artificial sweeteneres are different. They don't taste like sugar, but then non-fat and low calorie foods don't taste like their full fat/calorie counterparts, either. These products are substitutes designed to provide you with the sweetness of sugar without the deliterious health consequences of sugar. Because they are not sugar, it is unrealistic to expect them to tast like sugar. Do you really expect fat free mayonnaise to tast like regular mayonaisse? Does low-carb bread taste normal? No, these products are not and are not intended to be indistinguishable replacements for the products they emulat. They are substitutes that may involve flavor compromise in exchange for other benefits, but then the vast majority of foods that are good for you are not nearly as appetizing as the foods that are bad for you, so this is no detriment peculiar to artificial sweetener.
I'm not promoting artificial sweeteners as a universal replacement for sugar or suggesting people switch. If you don't like the taste, don't use them. However, one is giving up substantial dietary advantages in doing so, and must be ever more vigilant of rising sugar intake. Soda is a massive component of American sugar intake, and alone switching to diet soda can dramatically reduce caloric intake and even out blood sugar and insulin levels, without "dieting" at all.
Conclusion: Science is Cool
Artificial sweeteners are an awesome example of chemical food engineering. They are doing the same things with synthetic fat substitutes to provide flavor without the caloric consequences (olestra). In the future I hope and believe we will have synthetic foods that taste like anything we want and are also 100% healthy, and even more nutritious for the body than anything we slay or pluck from the dirt. They've gotten a bad wrap because of the erroneous link to cancer which fueled an ignorant social hysteria, and because they have been mistreated by most people and failed to produce miraculous weight losses people were unreasonably expecting (which they never claimed they could do, as opposed to all kinds of snake-oil diet foods one can buy which *do* claim to help you lose weight even though they alone are useless for that).
Regardless of your stance on whether they are a good thing for us to have or not, get your facts straight because lots of popular opinion, as well as the info presented in the hub to which I'm responding, is not only misdirecting, it's false.
vote upvote downshareprintflag
- Useful (3)
- Funny
- Awesome (3)
- Beautiful
- Interesting (1)
CommentsLoading...
I agree with the comment above! The FDA are liars!
Organic isn't always better. Besides, not all of us can afford to eat only organic foods.
With all due respect Nocturnalis, you failed to post a link to all of those "overwhelming" and "utterly convincing" studies. You claim that the FDA has an agenda, but who's to say that the people performing the independent studies are being 100% honest, hmm? Haven't you heard of clinician bias? Time and time again, those in the science field frequently skew the data in an attempt to prove that their point of view is the correct one. If I knew you were leading the latest study on artificial sweeteners, I'd take whatever your alleged results were with a grain of salt, Nocturnalis. There is a difference between statistical relevance and a strong positive correlation between two variables.
Here's an example: someone like you would have one control group of mice (you would "randomly" pick 5 very strong and healthy ones) that you fed only sugar to for a week and an experimental group (hand-picked by you--making sure you grab 5 sickly looking mice) that you fed nothing but Splenda to. After the first week, half of the experimental group dies and you rush out to the nearest media outlet to publish your results. Since the public is stupid and haven't a clue about how experiments are performed, they will be apt to believe anything you report. I mean, you *ARE* a scientist. You're a damn expert! Deep down, you know that you hand-picked sickly mice for your experimental and that the experiment was inherently flawed from the beginning, you have a damn agenda to push onto others. You are one of those insane health nuts.
Having said that, please post one of your studies.
its quite the opposite. if anything the real conspiracy is the people trying to stop artificial sweeteners from being made. this would blunt our economy drastically. everyone looks at the immediate satisfaction thinking (although false) that people would live without sickness if we ban art sweeteners yet so many companies would shut down so many more jobs lost it would shut down everything and cause more death than they realize on top of a major dive into poverty. it is true there is no negative side effects from them. vegans try everyday to stop meat eaters claiming meat based protein is useless and causes death and multiple other diseases. i also laugh myself to tears when i see the group supporting these ideals. they always end up being a majority of sickly people/ overweight people/ physically inferior/ socially inept (just went along with a group to feel accepted)/or arrived to rallies cuz they were handing out free snacks.
I just wanted to say thanks for posting this. It is 100 percent infuriating how often people quote those "studies," if you can even call them that, and then try to argue that diet cola causes cancer. It is so stupid! Even big media news companies do it and every time i see it, i roll my eyes. Plus, nobody even recognizes that the FDA always does THEIR OWN work, AND THEN, in addition to their own work, they go invite 20-50 independent doctors on a panel advisory committee, ask them the same questions or the controversial questions about a product, and then they, 95 percent of the time, will go with the panel's recommendation as to yes/no on the product. EVERY ONE of those panel members has been vetted themselves as well as their spouses, minor children, and any dependents, immediate family, for ANY kind of interest in the product at issue. And if you have ANY kind of interest, whether you bought stock 20 years ago and sold it or WHATEVER, your expenses are being paid by some company with interest, you don't get to be on the panel. They have ONE single industry representative on every panel and they are a NON-VOTING member of the panel, so basically they don't get squat EXCEPT to state their opinions, but those industry reps NEVER vote. It's mind-boggling that they allow doctors to talk about this sweetener stuff and at the same time allow them to 100 percent ignore the context. Seriously, people! How that many people, and especially doctors, can ignore how hard the FDA works to get rid of bias is beyond me. Selection bias is a huge problem and those panels, if you've ever read any of their transcripts, jump on that stuff like flies on s**t, so to speak.
I also wanted to mention that most of those panel members end up being tops in their field, like from Harvard School of Public Health, Yale, University of Alberta, etc. They are not just random chump doctors like these "diet cola causes cancer" doctors. So if you are calling out the FDA for supposedly being "in the pockets of the food and drug industry," you are also essentially calling out pretty much every doctor that's ever been involved with the FDA, no matter the extent, and i just find that to be short-sighted, misinformed, and stupid. Yes, you can argue to me until you're blue in the face that every Ivy League school and every good medical school or research institute as well as the FDA are ALL "in the pockets of the food and drug industry," but you better have some dang good unbiased evidence because making a claim like that about THAT MANY people and places is just ridiculous. Harvard is Harvard because they don't do crap like that, Yale, University of Alberta, Stanford, etc.
NocturNalis78 3 years ago
So you would like us all to believe that decades of independent research and studies are wrong because the FDA says so. C'mon now, the FDA is a government beaurocrasy and has everything to gain by trying to convince us all that artificial sweeteners are okay. America has been using artificial sweeteners for a long time now and on a very widescale base and yet isthe fattest, unhealthiest nation in the world. So why is that if these artificial sweeteners are not bad for your health? They most certainly are and while sugar isn't good either, it's not nearly as bad. White sugar is heavily processed but if you use pure cane sugar like I do, you won't be causing any harm to yourself if used in moderation. Why don't you mention Stevia in your blog as it is a low calorie NATURAL sweetener with no negative health risks and tastes better than any artificial sweetener. The evidence is overwhelming against made-made food additives being bad for your health and the truth can be found from any independent source which has nothing to gain or lose by revealing the facts aside from credibility. The FDA will never give you the full truth as they are supported by the food and drug industries, partners in crime I say. The global obesity epidemic will continue to grow and spread as long as these dangerous chemicals are being added to our food. Go organic and your body will thank you!