Posts
Many people want to know what other artificial sweeteners they can safely use instead of aspartame. My first recommendation is NOT to use any chemical sweeteners at all, but merely use natural sugars or learn to adjust to the natural sweetness of raw foods themselves.
I have provided a list of alternative artificial sweeteners available on the market today, even though I am not recommending their use over natural sweeteners. I do recommend them above aspartame, nonetheless, as their side effects is less harmful to human health.
The best thing to do is avoid all artificial and chemical sweetener substitutes. They have NO food value, trick the body into thinking it is eating something sweet, and they have by-products of harmful toxic side effects. And remember that aspartame was discovered as an ulcer drug, not a sweetener. Every diet drink you used to drink was a dose of medAcesulfame K. http://www.sweetpoison.com
Acesulfame Potassium (K) was approved for use by the FDA as a safe artificial sweetener in July, l988. It is a derivative of acetoacetic acid. Unfortunately, several potential problems associated with the use of acesulfame have been raised. They are based largely on animal studies since testing on humans remains limited. The findings showed the following:
Acesulfame K stimulates insulin secretion in a dose dependent fashion thereby possibly aggravating reactive hypoglycemia ("low blood sugar attacks").
Acesulfame K apparently produced lung tumors, breast tumors; rare types of tumors of other organs (such as the thymus gland), several forms of leukemia and chronic respiratory disease in several rodent studies, even when less than maximum doses were given. According to the Center for Science in the Public Interest, it was petitioned on August 29, l988 for a stay of approval by the FDA because of "significant doubt" about its safety.
Dr. H.J. Roberts, Aspartame (NutraSweet) Is It Safe? Charles Press, page 283/84.
Aspartame
Aspartame, a dipeptide of aspartic acid and a methyl ester of phenylalanine, is approved for use in pharmaceutical products and is being used increasingly in chewable tablet and sugar-free formulations. Labels for both prescription and nonprescription products must include the phenylalanine content. The major consideration in the use of aspartame in children is in patients with autosomal recessive phenylketonuria. Although heterozygotes do not appear to have clinically significant increases in phenylalanine after ingestion of even large amounts (equivalent to 24 12-oz cans of diet beverages), homozygotes with strict dietary restrictions should avoid aspartame. Children without dietary restrictions could safely ingest 10 mg/kg/d. [37-40]. Dietary consumption of aspartame is typically less than 5 mg/kg/d[41]; young children, however, could ingest considerably more. For example, a 2-year-old child weighing 12 kg consumes 17 mg/kg from drinking one 12-oz can of diet soda and one serving of a sweetened product (eg, cereal, pudding, gelatin, or frozen dessert).
Headache is the most common adverse side effect attributed to aspartame but is seldom confirmed by single-dose double-blind challenge. 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.
In anecdotal reports, aspartame has been linked to various neuropsychiatric disorders, including panic attacks, mood changes, visual hallucinations, manic episodes, and isolated dizziness. 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. Patients with underlying mitral valve prolapse or affective disorders may be at increased risk for neuropsychiatric effects; several studies have shown that individuals without psychiatric or seizure disorders do not demonstrate these effects.
Seizures have been reported via passive surveillance data collected by the FDA and in a few case reports. A recent analysis of FDA reports showed 41 cases of rechallenge with a temporal relationship to aspartame consumption. Most seizures occurred in patients who had an acceptable dietary intake, except for a 16-year-old who ingested up to 57 mg/kg of aspartame. Aspartame is generally considered safe for children with epilepsy. One study found increased spike-wave discharges in children with untreated absence seizures after a high dose of aspartame and suggested that children with poorly controlled absence seizures avoid aspartame.
Saccharin
Foods containing saccharin no longer carry a label stating that the "use of this product may be hazardous to your health ...contains saccharin which has been determined to cause cancer in laboratory animals." This warning was lifted in 2001 by the American FDA as saccharin no longer has been connected to cancer in human beings.
Saccharin may be present in drugs in substantial amounts. Ingestion of the recommended daily dosage of chewable aspirin or acetaminophen tablets in a school-age child would provide approximately the same amount of saccharin contained in one can of a diet soft drink. This amount, relative to the body weight of a child younger than 9 or 10 years, ingested for prolonged periods would be considered as "heavy use," as defined in a major large-scale FDA/National Cancer Institute epidemiologic study. In this study, heavy use of artificial sweeteners was associated with a significantly increased risk for the development of bladder cancer. An independent review of this study concluded that there was no association. An investigation of saccharin performed by the American Medical Association in 1985 concluded that bladder changes were species-specific, were confined to the second generation of male rats, and occurred in association with large doses (equivalent to several hundred cans of diet soft drink per day). The no-effect level was equivalent to 500 mg/kg/d.[68, 69] Saccharin is not genotoxic; the presumed mechanism of toxicity is the binding of saccharin to urinary proteins (not normally found in humans), creating a nidus for the formation of silicate crystals, which are cytotoxic to bladder epithelium.
Saccharin is an O-toluene sulfonamide derivative and causes similar dermatologic reactions. Cross-sensitivity with sulfonamides has been demonstrated; therefore, children with "sulfa" allergy should also avoid saccharin. Hypersensitivity can usually be confirmed by a radioallergosorbent test for saccharin. In a series of 42 patients with adverse effects resulting from consumption of saccharin in pharmaceutical agents, pruritus and urticaria were the most common reactions, followed by eczema, photosensitivity, and prurigo. Other reactions include wheezing, nausea, diarrhea, tongue blisters, tachycardia, fixed eruptions, headache, diuresis, and sensory neuropathy.
Ingestion of saccharin-adulterated milk formula by infants was associated with irritability, hypertonia, insomnia, opisthotonos, and strabismus, which resolved within 36 hours after ingestion. Two anecdotal reports of an accidental overdose in an adult and a child discussed reactions of generalized edema, oliguria, and persistent albuminuria. Because of the paucity of data on the toxicity of saccharin in children, the American Medical
Association has recommended limiting the intake of saccharin in young children and pregnant women.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
tchrcoun:
ReplyDeleteConcerning aspartame, you need to know the latest facts. All aspartame research prior to 2009 is seriously and fatally flawed, because it was all done in a scientifically unacceptable manner. That was established by preliminary work presented at the Society of Toxicology (Seattle, USA) and the American Chemical Society (New Orleans, USA) national meetings in early 2008 and is currently being preparing for regular publication. In those locations it was demonstrated that inappropriate controls were used in all aspartame research starting with the original Searle work and extending through the Soffritti et al work published over the past several years (and even other work thereafter). The standard control-versus-treated animal experiments are invalid for aspartame, because aspartame is hydrolyzed to methanol and methanol has long been known to deplete a vitamin, namely folic acid. No properly done experiment can deplete a vitamin, but all experiments to date claiming problems have done just that! Hence, both controlled and treated groups of animals must be provided either the appropriate amounts of folic acid supplement to counter methanol-induced loss OR both controlled and treated groups of animals must be provided the same intake of methanol, one directly and the other from aspartame. However, the latter is an experimentally more challenging option. Various other studies found “no effect” from aspartame. Such animal studies were either of such short duration that folate depletion was not evident or more likely were performed with corn/soybean or other diets rich in folate and would not be expected to show any effect. While no work to date has done these experiments correctly, you should realize the suggested adverse effects claimed by antiaspartame critics in animals can be shown to stem entirely from an induced vitamin shortage. This includes “migraines, dizziness, shaking and tremors, seizures, mental confusion, change in mood, Alzheimer’s and permanent blindness” linked in your document to aspartame. A simple review of the primary literature at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ will show all these issues are far better connected to folate deficiency, folate genetics issues, and homocysteine accrual than to aspartame.
The second reality is that this same underlying issue explains human problems attributed by critics to aspartame. Many people are folate deficient, both because some people refuse to take vitamin supplements and avoid folate fortified grain products (donuts, etc), but also because some people (~20%) have genetic problems that increase their need for folate. Folate deficiency underlies birth defects, many cancers, and other conditions. It is these folate issues and not aspartame that explain much of this manufactured controversy, because most of the "symptoms" claimed for aspartame at various web sites are direct or indirect consequences of personal folate deficiency and related problems.
For either animal or man the consequences of the folate deficiency that result are the incorporation of structurally weak uridylate (uracil, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uracil) bases in DNA in place of stronger thymidylate (methyluridylate called thymine, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thymine) and/or the accrual of toxic homocysteine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homocysteine), most likely because of insufficient methylation of homocysteine to afford methionine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methionine). Much has been written about the “excitotoxic” amino acids in aspartame (phenylalanine and aspartic acid) by aspartame critics. However, those excitotoxic amino acids occur at far greater concentrations in everyday food, so neither of these amino acids are issues for most people. However, what seems to be consistently missed by the antiaspartame critics is that homocysteine is a far stronger excitotoxin than any constituent of aspartame.
In summary, there is no valid science questioning aspartame’s safety, but there is substantial direct and indirect evidence that any personal issues with aspartame reflect not aspartame per se, but a personal folate deficiency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folate_deficiency), folate polymorphism genetic issues (for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methylenetetrahydrofolate_reductase), and/or issues with related biochemistry linked to vitamin B12 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_B12). There is no data suggesting any adverse effect for aspartame than cannot simply and completely be explained by the folate deficiency, folate genetics, and homocysteine paradigm.
This new information only suggests aspartame is even safer, now that what I have reported above is known to all the regulatory authorities. Given these new, stronger indications of safety, science no longer has any reason to doubt the safety of aspartame. And the European equivalent of the US FDA on April 20 just validated the safety of aspartame again, http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620753812_1211902454309.htm.
John E. Garst, Ph.D. (Medicinal Chemistry, Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Nutrition)
(FYI, the author has absolutely no financial or biasing connection with the aspartame, the soft drink or their related industries and have made not one penny from my opposition, unlike many antiaspartame critics who sell books and offer irrelevant treatment. Their clearly stated goals are lawsuits, where none are justified. The author has an undergraduate degree in chemistry (with emphasis in organic and biological chemistry) from the University of Kansas, a Ph.D. in Medicinal Chemistry (Pharmacy) from the University of Iowa, postdoctoral experience at Yale University (Molecular Biophysics & Biochemistry) and two postdoctoral fellowships at Vanderbilt University (physiology-pharmacology (mentor moved), then nutritional toxicology) and taught nutritional toxicology at the University of Illinois (Champaign-Urbana, UIUC) besides having conducted federally funded research at Vanderbilt, UIUC, and at several other universities before recently entering into semi-retirement.)
Jegarst,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate feedback, thank you for your comment.
There is always new evidence coming out in science concerning the chemicals we put in the foods we eat.
Most people in the real world and not in the medical field don’t have a perfectly healthy body/mind, and many will be deficient in folic acid or other nutrients…
Therefore, do have adverse reactions to the unnatural things such as sweeteners we put in our bodies.
As Sean (a Chemist friend of mine) teasing me will say, “You can go all natural if you wish; my family will keep eating the processed foods, as chemicals is what keeps me in business.”
My personal goal is to become as “Natural” as possible in my nutrition for better health. I am not there yet; but am personally trying to eliminate as many things with the word “artificial” in them.