We
already know that if you want to use a sweetener for whatever
purpose, refined sugar is not what you should be using by
choice. A far more viable option to refined sugar, either
white or brown, is the unrefined natural cane sugar commonly
sold in Mexico and the Caribbean and is sometimes available
through health stores in the USA and Canada. Read on and learn
whether you should be trusting any of the artificial
sweeteners available.
A brief history of Artificial
Sweeteners. Would you believe that the first artificial
sweetener was put out to the public in 1903 and was actually
discovered in 1879? Between 1903 and 2002 several artificial
sweeteners were introduced to the North American public, each
with its own unique promise of low calories and guilt-free
consumption. What were they and when were they "invented
and released" to the public? And just how safe are each
of them to use?
Saccharin, discovered in 1879 by
Constantine Fahlberg, a chemistry research assistant at Johns
Hopkins University in Maryland. It was used in industrial
applications. In 1903 entrepreneur John F. Queeny and newly
formed Monsanto began selling saccharin to food and beverage
companies including Coca Cola. Also known as: acid saccharin,
sodium saccharin and calcium saccharin. The major enticements
to saccharin were it was a cheap, no calorie sweetener, unique
in that it could not be metabolized by the human body and was
excreted in the urine. Teddy Roosevelt stated "Anybody
who says saccharin is injurious to health is an idiot."
It became especially popular during WW II with the sugar
shortage. In 1977 Canadian research demonstrated that high
doses of saccharin caused cancer in rats and it was
immediately banned in Canada but reintroduced later. The US
FDE deemed more study was required and allowed it to remain on
the market with the frightening warning label "Use of
this product may be hazardous to your health. This product
contains saccharin which has been determined to cause cancer
in laboratory animals." New legislation in 2001 removed
this warning label. Saccharin belongs to a class of compounds
known as sulfonamides. Persons who are allergic to sulfa drugs
can react to saccharin with skin eruptions, breathing
difficulties, headaches and diarrhea. Saccharin is presently
sold in the US as Sweet 'n Low and Sugar Twin, and in Canada
as Sweet 'n Low. Saccharin can be considered relatively safe
if you are not in any way allergic to sulfa drugs.
Cyclamate. It was discovered in
1937 by Michael Sveda, a graduate student at the University of
Illinois, and the patent was purchased by DuPont, later sold
to Abbott Laboratories, making its debut in 1950 and was
promoted as a no-calorie, diabetic-friendly sweetener. It was
combined with saccharin in the original Sweet 'n Low formula.
It is also known as calcium cyclamate and sodium cyclamate.
Research during the 1960's showed evidence of bladder cancer
and testicular abnormalities in laboratory rats and the US FDA
banned it in 1969. Later research showed that cyclamate also
caused DNA damage in the digestive organs of mice and rats. In
1978 Health and Welfare Canada declared a general agreement
that cyclamates were no carcinogenic, based on more
sophisticated lab testing that was available in previous
years. It is presently being sold in Canada under the brand
name "Sugar Twin".
Aspartame. Discovered
accidentally in 1965 by James Schlatter, an employee of the
pharmaceutical company G. D. Searle, while working on new drug
formulations. Safety studies by both the G. D. Searle (the
“inventor) and later the FDA, particularly with the help of
G. D. Searle’s then CEO, Donald Rumsfeld, aspartame was
approved in 1981. In 1985 G. D. Searle sold the rights to
Aspartame to Monsanto, the company who has also given us Agent
Orange, recombinant bovine growth hormone and a wide variety
of chemicals and genetically modified plants. When first
marketed aspartame was promoted as a “no-calorie sweetener
that could help with weight loss, diabetes maintenance, lower
the incidence of cavities and reduce the risks associated with
obesity; it was even given an endorsement by the American
Dental Association.” Since its introduction independent
research has show that aspartame has neuro-toxic and
potentially deadly effects on the human body. The most common
health risks linked to aspartame include visual impairment,
seizures, headaches, dizziness, high blood pressure,
Fibromyalgia-like muscle pain, depression, speech impairment,
tinnitus and memory loss. European researchers demonstrated in
2000 that formaldehyde, one of the breakdown products of
aspartame, accumulates in the brain and other organs of
regular users leading to immune, nervous system and genetic
damage. These may consequently result in misdiagnoses as
lupus, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s
disease and may as well lead to birth defects in children of
aspartame users. In 2002 the original safety studies revealed
that diketopiperazine, another aspartame breakdown product and
a known carcinogen, produced brain tumors in lab animals and
was now showing up in brain tumor tissue removed from humans.
Despite this preponderance of evidence of the damaging effects
of aspartame it presently remains approved and on sale in
Canada and the US. In fact, Health Canada recently declared
aspartame “safe” for use by pregnant women. In the US and
Canada it is marketed as aspartame, Nutrasweet and Equal, and
as Spoonfuls in the US. A combination of aspartame and
acesulfame potassium has been available since 1995 under the
name Twinsweet. Neotame. In 2002 neotame (the
latest incarnation of aspartame) was released with full FDA
approval.
Acesulfame potassium,
also known as acesulfame-K, potassium acesulfame, ace-K and
ACK, appeared on the North American scene in 1988 and has been
sold under the names Sunett, Sweet One, Swiss Sweet and Sweet
& Safe. It was discovered in 1967 by Karl Clauss, a
chemist working for the Hoechst Group of Germany. Based upon
safety studies by Hoechst (the inventor), the FDA approved
limited use of acesulfame potassium in 1988 despite protest by
the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) that it
had not been properly tested for safety. Like its precursors,
saccharin and cyclamate, it is promoted as a non-nutritive
sweetener. Non-nutritive means that it is not metabolized by
the body, therefore does not provide any caloric content, and
is excreted in the urine “harmlessly”. The Hoechst Group
studies suggest that this additive might cause cancer in rats
and CSPI has continued to protest the inadequate safety
studies originally done. Other studies demonstrated that one
of the breakdown products, acetoacetamide, affected the
thyroid gland in rats, rabbits and dogs; that rats in
particular developed fast-growing benign tumors when fed
acetoacetamide daily. Although it is marketed as a sugar
alternative, acesulfame potassium may have a similar effect to
sugar in that it can stimulate insulin release and could be
problematic for those with syndrome-x, hypoglycemia or
diabetes. It is most commonly seen in Canada as acesulfame-K;
in the US it’s sold under the names Sunett or Sweet One.
Splenda. With the reputations of aspartame and
acesulfame potassium somewhat tarnished, it was ripe for a new
kid on the block: enter sucralose. It was discovered quite by
accident by graduate student Shashikant Phadnis at Queen
Elizabeth College, University of London, while researching
ways to use sucrose in chemical formations, in 1976. It was
approved by Health Canada in 1991 and by the US FDA in 1999.
British Sugar Company Tate & Lyle collaborated with
Johnson & Johnson (J&J), in 1980, to create an
artificial sweetener from chlorinated sucrose through the
Johnson & Johnson subsidiary McNeil Specialty Products.
The FDA’s own studies indicate that sucralose can cause
lymphatic cell mutations in mice; nevertheless, the FDA gave
full approval to Splenda in 1999. It is promoted by J&J
“as a calorie-free, carbohydrate-free sweetener that is save
for diabetics, children and pregnant women” as it “does
not break down the body but, like others before it, passes
harmlessly through the body. Both the FDA and independent
Japanese research contradict that claim, however, and show
that up to 40 percent of consumed sucralose is absorbed by the
body and with an undetermined amount concentrating in the
liver, kidneys and/or gastro-intestinal tract. Further
independent research on rats, mice and rabbits demonstrates
liver and kidney enlargement as well as structural
irregularities of the colon. Other animal research reveals
that sucralose can cause up to 40 percent shrinkage of the
thymus gland, a decreased red blood cell count, reduced fetal
weight and growth rate, genetic damage and birth defects. The
FDA has stated that “aside from any direct toxicity from
sucralose itself, it may also contain trace amounts of heavy
metals, arsenic, methanol and other chlorinated saccharides
(sugars) but that these contaminants are considered acceptable
within current manufacturing guidelines.” It is available in
Canada and the USA under the names sucralose and Splenda.
Alternatives.
As otherwise noted, unrefined cane sugar is available with a
little bit of effort and is a healthy, viable option, although
it is not low-calorie. Other wholesome alternatives are
organic rapadura or sucanat sugar, unrefined sugar cane juices
that retain their naturally occurring nutrients and full
flavor. Another is organic and mineral rich molasses, which
stimulates release of serotonin. Grade C organic maple syrup
contains vitamins and minerals. Raw organic honey contains
protein and B complex (raw honey should not be given to young
children). Finally, organic grain syrups such as barley or
rice retain up to half of the original whole grain nutrients.
The major problem with these wholesome, natural and very healthful
alternatives is that they are naturally occurring and thus can
never be patented. There thus is no incentive for drug and/or
chemical companies to market these items; so the search for
“patents and profits from the unsuspecting public” goes
on….and on…..and on. The worst part of this? We are now
into our 5th, 4th, 3rd, 2nd
and 1st generation of observing and documenting
what is happening to human beings because of these
“harmless, non-nutrient, zero calorie” sugar substitutes.
We have documented birth defects and DNA alterations. What
does the future hold, 1-2-3 generations into our future, for
the more distant results of obviously widespread, albeit
minor, genetic alterations and birth defects? How healthy are
your great grandchildren going to be? What are they going to
look like with DNA alterations as well as birth defects? What
are the long-term ramifications for the human race? Don’t
you believe its time to make a healthy decision for you and
your children and grandchildren? As a closing thought, it is
already proven that there are, at the very least, digestive
problems with the genetically modified grains. Where will this
all end?
References:
http://www.splendatruth.com/index.htm
http://www.aspartame.org/index.html
http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/
http://www.earthrenewal.org/saccharin.htm
http://www.cspinet.org/new/saccharin_labeling.html
http://www.caloriecontrol.org/cyclam2.html
http://www.westonprice.org
http://www.alive.com/intro.html
http://www.xylitol.org
http://www.thewolfeclinic.com
http://www.finlandiapharmacy.com
See Loring Windblad’s other “Sugar” article, Sugar
or Artificial Sweeteners: Which To Use?
Disclaimer:
This article in no way should be taken as “medical
advice” on any product, condition or course of action, nor
does it constitute in any way “medical advice” endorsing
any specific product, specific result, nor any possible cure
for any condition or problem. This article is meant as a
source of information upon which you may base your decision as
to whether or not you should begin using any vitamin, mineral
and/or herbal supplement for better health, or begin using a
“greens” product as a dietary supplement.
If in doubt, or if you have questions, you should consult your
physician and, if possible, consult a second physician for a
possible different opinion. The author does not bear any
responsibility for your decisions nor for the outcome of your
actions based upon those decisions.
|
