Quantcast

Are Artificial Sweeteners Safe?

chaoskitty123 2012/05/06 01:47:57
They are not safe
They are safe
They may be safe
Maybe some serious scientific research should be done by both sides instead of playing games so we would know
I am diabetic and this is important to me so get it right
I'm on a diet and this is important to me
I'm not on a diet or diabetic so I'll just stick with sugar
I just don't know
You!
Add Photos & Videos
As a Type 2 diabetic, I can't use most products which include sugar but must still have a certain amount of sugar because my sugar levels go up and down. This means artificial sweeteners have been something I use instead.

There's been a lot of talk about both Splenda and Aspartame where, if you believe the hype, it seems they cause almost every ailment known to mankind.

It's been said Aspartame causes everything from alzheimers and lupus to multiple sclerosis, seizures, leukemia and that it is especially dangerous for black people because it kills them. It has even been asserted that Aspartame caused what is now known as Desert Storm Syndrome as it was added to the food and drink shipped over to our soldiers. The list of the things it causes is growing but most of the alleged side effects or diseases created by it have no real research behind them anymore than the research that says it is safe. In most of the studies where a higher number of test subjects are studied, the actual number of cases where something goes wrong is small such as 12 out of 320 people had brain tumors after a period of time while another group of 320 had none. A study done of 3 rhesus monkeys revealed that if you gradually increase the amount of aspartame in their drinking water, the more they became addicted to that water... they tested three monkeys and that revealed this when it's also been proven in past research you get the same result by adding sugar to water.

There have been numerous accusations which haven't been proven such as embalmers warning that people who drink heavy amounts of Aspartame are "pre embalmed" and that in some cases they request the caskets be closed because formaldehyde was literally seeping out of their skin. So how did the embalmers know these people drank aspartame heavily? Answer... they don't as the only way to know is to ask family members or people who knew the deceased and asking them if they heavily drank cold drinks with aspartame in it is a very unlikely thing to happen. It was only a rumor created to sell books making this claim.

Likewise, Splenda is supposed to be the same chemical composition as DDT? Ok, so DDT is illegal but the government approves something with the exact same chemical composition as an artificial sweetener? Would it not then be possible to prove this and have it removed because DDT itself is still illegal? But make note of studies which proved Splends / Sucralose causes massive problems with test results like this...

Quote
In another experiment conducted at Eye, rabbits were given doses of Sucralose 1,200 times the expected human daily intake. Many died of trauma and others suffered from extreme weight loss, convulsions and intestinal disorders.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Splenda:_Sadistica...
End Quote

Note, they gave the rabbits doses 1,200 times the expected human intake? First, there are many things we eat or drink daily which, if taken in massive doses, can kill you or do great harm to your body. Also note, many things that are perfectly safe for humans will kill dogs or cats... you don't give a cat aspirin for instance. Now, do rabbits eat processed sugar? Give them 1,200 times the normal amount of sugar that a human uses every day and you're going to kill that rabbit because processed sugar is not a natural part of it's diet for one... and because we gave it 1,200 times what a human would take in over a day with one dose for the rabbit, try that with a human and see what happens.

Also, have you noticed that if you feed your pets table scraps that they'll stop eating cat or dog foods... and they will even stop eating their normal foods like how cats won't eat rats even if they might kill them? It's because they become addicted to food we eat even though it is not part of their natural diet under any circumstances.

In other words, they are giving animals massive doses of these artificial sweeteners at one time which humans may not even take in over an entire year as 1,200 times what a human takes in over a day is around four years.

Remember Saccharin? It was proven to cause cancer and removed from the market. However, it was also said that Saccharin caused all kinds of health problems with the same type of flawed research being conducted which anyone with a bit of common sense can say... wait a minute! So Saccharin was eventually put back on the market. In 1969, the discovery of files from the FDA's investigations of 1948 and 1949, which had originally argued against saccharin use, were shown to prove almost no harmful effects at all. In 1972, the USDA made an attempt to completely ban the substance but failed largely because the research claims that it caused numerous health problems was extremely flawed and often completely false.

In fact, studies done on rats resulting in Saccharin having a label warning of cancer in the 1970's were proven false and the label removed in 2000 because it was discovered that rats have an additional protein which bonded with the Saccharin causing them to develop bladder cancer... humans don't have this protein and no proven cases of bladder cancer were actually discovered for this reason.

Much of the research being pandered about Aspartame and Splenda is the same with numerous claims using animal research, small research results over a brief period of time (the exact same claim made against the companies producing these products). Take, for instance, the claim that Apartame and Splenda kill fireants... the same claim is made about normal orange juice which ironically, many who claim the artificial sweeteners kill ants also add that orange juice does as well in it's natural form. I actually dumped an entire bag of Splenda on a fireant mound (it tastes horrible anyway lol) and the damn mound doubled in size. Even many people claiming it kills fireants admit it doesn't always work and the same is true of people who claim Aspartame kills fireants. In fact, you can toss common salt and many other substances on fireant mounds and discover them gone the next day... because they have massive underground tunnels where they can literally move the entire colony in less than one night. So if you make them uncomfortable enough, they can just pack up and leave. The way to tell if you killed them is to dig up the mound as you will find their dead bodies if they died... don't be surprised you if you find only a small number.

Guaranteed ways to kill fireants are gasoline, kerosene or high pressure hot water if you are more environmentally concerned. Even rice doesn't always kill them out as we are told... that doesn't mean that people are lying when they say it does, it simply means it doesn't always work because fireants who survive can become immune and move away through their underground tunnels.

For diabetics, artificial sweeteners are actually all they can use most of the time as sugar will cause countless proven health problems. Sugar doesn't always cause diabetes, however, as this is a myth. Sugar is a substance human bodies have become adjusted to and when other parts of the body that regulate sugar become damaged, then sugar becomes a problem because your body can no longer properly manage sugar and it's as if you are ingesting much larger doses of sugar... remember what I said about the rabbit study above? How they were being given 1,200 times what a human ingested in one day? No matter who you are, if you ingest too much sugar then more of it will pass through your body damaging organs... it's not that sugar causes diabetes, it's that we eat too much of it and anything you eat or drink too much of can be dangerous that is perfectly healthy in normal doses our bodies have adjusted to.

I became a diabetic when I was stung by a large Mexican (or European) hornet which hit me like a gunshot right in the middle of my spine injecting it's poison directly into the nerves in my spine causing a massive allergic reaction as my antihistamines to go into overdrive attacking my body from within. I had never been allergic to any type of bee or wasp until that moment and had just taken a physical for a job before this where a test for diabetes was run for the company health insurance... completely normal before, Type 2 diabetic afterwards.

There is now a natural sweetener on the market called Stevia which has a different taste but it's been used in Japan for centuries apparently with no known side effects at all. I now use it where I can and it comes in two forms... one pure Stevia and the other with just a bit of real sugar to spike the taste a little for US consumers.

But the problem here with artificial sweeteners is it turns out that many who are making the accusations either have personal issues with the corporations, their own research is as flawed as they claim the corporations is and most just copy paste the information inundating the internet so that we see the claims repeated so often we think they are factual... that's not necessarily true. In fact, all these dangerous effects of artificial sweeteners corresponds directly to Americans changing diets where we eat so unhealthy that even food with no artificial sugar in it is being blamed for many of the same health issues. There are also far more of us and technology to detect disease has advanced over this same period of time so that the numbers and percentages of these problems will naturally be seen as increasing.

But what if they are dangerous?

If they are dangerous then the people providing the research need to be conducting extensive research over a period of time and considering factors like animals are biologically different than us and that they should be using the exact same amount of the sweetener as a human would take every day based on body size and weight... that is simple common sense and if they are injecting animals with massive doses of anything, it will cause the animals to suffer and die from completely flawed research that anyone can figure out if they just focus on what they are being told instead of blindly believing it.

If these sweeteners are dangerous... the flawed research claiming it proves it will do more damage than good for people trying to reduce their sugar intake or whose bodies have become compromised in some way that they cannot properly regulate sugar or consume anything with it.

For many diabetics, the option is clear... if the artificial sweeteners may kill you, we still have to deal with the fact that sugar itself will cause even worse "guaranteed" problems, disabilities and death.

If you are dieting, maybe you should just try a different diet where you drink less and less soft drinks while eating less sweets... find natural alternatives where you can still enjoy something sweet that diabetics can't consume. you have more options.

If Stevia is as great as everyone claims, then maybe we should demand the soft drink companies switch to it as if it tastes just like sugar with just a small amount of real sugar added to spike it... then even most diabetics might be able to consume it. I use it when I can in it's pure form, but if you are worried about aspartame, saccharin and splenda... then why not start petitions to let the soft drink companies know you want it.

Sorry for the length as most know I am long winded... but this one is a topic you really can't just say a few words about, you actually do need to put more into it to show people both sides or at least try.




Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • gregaj7 2012/05/06 02:01:31 (edited)
    They are not safe
    gregaj7
    +4
    ALL of them are hazardous to your health. This also includes HFCS, which is Federally supported (corn subsidy). Stevia, honey, and unrefined sugar, like Zulka (Mexican sugar) are the best.
    FYI: Aspartame is approved by politics (Rumsfeld). Saccharin was the first product (1902) of Monsanto.
    http://www.naturalnews.com/02...

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • sglmom 2012/05/06 10:03:31
    Maybe some serious scientific research should be done by both sides instead o...
    sglmom
    Diabetes does run in my family ..
    (but a healthier lifestyle .. a full Military Career and so much more active than my elders were have contributed to me not showing up with Diabetes to date)

    (yes, I know I should knock on wood .. but I'm staying active and eating far healthier than the previous generation -- who lived through the Great Depression)

    I've been concerned about the safety of these 'artificial' sweeteners .. all along.
    With a judicious use of sugar (light touch) ..
    and taking care to balance my diet
    This is seeming to do well for me.
  • CentristCitizen 2012/05/06 03:33:20
    They are not safe
    CentristCitizen
    +1
    No. They cause cancer.
  • MJ 2012/05/06 02:24:03
    They are not safe
    MJ
    +2
    Not Safe!
  • blah 2012/05/06 02:20:23
    They are not safe
    blah
    +3
    Not safe
  • gregaj7 2012/05/06 02:01:31 (edited)
    They are not safe
    gregaj7
    +4
    ALL of them are hazardous to your health. This also includes HFCS, which is Federally supported (corn subsidy). Stevia, honey, and unrefined sugar, like Zulka (Mexican sugar) are the best.
    FYI: Aspartame is approved by politics (Rumsfeld). Saccharin was the first product (1902) of Monsanto.
    http://www.naturalnews.com/02...
  • chaoski... gregaj7 2012/05/06 02:36:18
    chaoskitty123
    +2
    But diabetics can't use honey and Zulka is actually just a brand name made in Mexico from unrefined sugar cane juice giving it a different taste and aroma but it is still cane sugar in a different form... I learned that the hard way when someone told me it wasn't the same as real sugar when it is simply processed a different way.

    If you only read the header, your answer makes sense and I know it is a long topic. But research telling us the artificial sugar substitute is dangerous is just as flawed as what people claim the corporations making it have done.

    In one study I mention, they injected 1,200 times a daily dose a human would ingest in one day into a rabbit... if you force a human to ingest anything 1,200 times more than they would normally ingest in one day, it will cause damage or even kill them... is that fair to assume?

    In the case of Saccharin, you may remember how it was "proven" to cause cancer. That came from research on rats and resulted in a warning being placed on Saccharin... turned out that rats have an additional protein that was negatively affected by Saccharin and the warning was removed from Saccharin because there was no proof Saccharin affects humans adversely.

    The research itself is the problem because when people claiming they are trying to protect us mak...













    But diabetics can't use honey and Zulka is actually just a brand name made in Mexico from unrefined sugar cane juice giving it a different taste and aroma but it is still cane sugar in a different form... I learned that the hard way when someone told me it wasn't the same as real sugar when it is simply processed a different way.

    If you only read the header, your answer makes sense and I know it is a long topic. But research telling us the artificial sugar substitute is dangerous is just as flawed as what people claim the corporations making it have done.

    In one study I mention, they injected 1,200 times a daily dose a human would ingest in one day into a rabbit... if you force a human to ingest anything 1,200 times more than they would normally ingest in one day, it will cause damage or even kill them... is that fair to assume?

    In the case of Saccharin, you may remember how it was "proven" to cause cancer. That came from research on rats and resulted in a warning being placed on Saccharin... turned out that rats have an additional protein that was negatively affected by Saccharin and the warning was removed from Saccharin because there was no proof Saccharin affects humans adversely.

    The research itself is the problem because when people claiming they are trying to protect us make the same mistakes they accuse the corporation researchers of making... then the research they conduct deserves just as much condemnation as the research done by the corporations.

    In the case with diabetics, we see this presented as most people think sugar causes diabetes... it doesn't. What causes diabetes is a failure by your body to properly regulate sugar which can be caused by anything. In my case, it was an allergic reaction to a bee sting and I had just had a test for diabetes for a job I was trying to get where the insurer required the test and I had no problem passing the test and had never had any symptoms... a few days later, the bee sting happened and it damaged my pancreas making me diabetic. In fact, many people who suffer back injuries or severe stomach trauma also become at least mildly diabetic because the pancreas is behind the stomach and an indicator of damage is often what most assume is a bad stomach ache.

    I am not saying they are safe... in fact, they could be dangerous. But people who need to diet for health reasons, or who are diabetic, need this proven safe or unsafe and when the testing that says it is dangerous is flawed... then it could be perfectly safe just as it could be harmful with everyone pointing fingers on an issue very serious to millions of people.

    Remember, the issue isn't about just another consumer good as most people who don't need to use artificial sweeteners won't... it's for people who cannot, or should not, be consuming things with real sugar in it.

    These companies aren't saying try it because it's healthier for you and better than real sugar, they only claim to be "sugar substitutes" for people who need an alternative... if you don't need an artificial sweetener, I completely agree you should stick with real sugar.

    But Stevia... this one could be the real deal for everyone as there are no known harmful side effects and for Type 2 diabetics like myself, the sugar "spiked" variety is something I could safely consume as long as I don't overdo it... in it's pure form, it is not known to have any harmful side effects on diabetics which should prove how harmless it is for dieters as well.

    So I'm not contradicting you but your answer is one I've heard before from someone who doesn't have to use an artificial sweetener so it's easier to view them as bad... until you consider that for people who can't consume real sugar for health reasons need an alternative because real sugar for them is more dangerous.

    Both sides in the argument forget that point because artificial sweeteners are perceived as a replacement for sugar (and in the 70's that's how Saccharin was promoted so there's reason to have that view) when the real reason today is the large number of people who shouldn't use real sugar because for them it's dangerous.
    (more)
  • gregaj7 chaoski... 2012/05/06 17:33:57
    gregaj7
    10-4.
  • Beccy 2012/05/06 01:48:55
    They are not safe
    Beccy
    +4
    I wouldn't take them
  • chaoski... Beccy 2012/05/06 02:02:53
    chaoskitty123
    +2
    Ok, question then... I suppose you aren't diabetic since you would probably have made reference to that. As a diabetic, it's something you have to consider because sugar and carb's can definately do more harm no question about it in regard to known problems.

    If you were in that situation, would you take the known killer or take a chance on the artificial stuff that actually has not been proven to kill.

    When the proof it's dangerous is giving a rabbit 1,200 times the daily dose a human would ingest (basically the equivalent of around 4 years for a human) all at once when forcing a human to take 1,200 times of almost anything they consume in one day can have the same dire consequences no matter how healthy it is... would you really consider the test accurate or misleading? What about it being proven Saccharine caused cancer because the test on mice was flawed because they possess a protein humans don't so that like feeding aspirin to cats, it has a completely different effect on the rats and no proven adverse effects at all on humans then because they don't possess that protein?

    Not confronting you, just I know it's a long topic and I know you're a fair minded person.
  • The Truth chaoski... 2012/05/06 02:32:38
    The Truth
    +3
    I am a type 2 diabetic since 2004. From childhood I drank sweet tea everyday and hardly anything else. In my late teens I switched to alcohol and hardly anything else. In my late 20's still not a diabetic, I began drinking diet sodas and health problems began shortly after that I never related to the diet sodas at the time. In 2002 I started drinking the Sam's choice diet sodas exclusively. In 2004 I am full blown type 2 diabetic. The only one in my family too. Also the only one in my family to ever drink diet sodas.

    Not arguing with you just offering a different point of view. I am not saying that diet sodas gave me diabetes as I believe it was something more sinister, but that's not anything I'm going to elaborate on.
  • chaoski... The Truth 2012/05/06 03:17:35
    chaoskitty123
    +1
    Well I became Type 2 diabetic from a bee sting as what causes diabetes is damage to the body. In your case, something else is likely to have happened like you said as like you, I drank sugared drinks (including tea) my entire life but didn't drink alcohol other than once in a very blue moon. I never would have thought an allergic reaction to a bee sting could do this and after my doctor proved what it was, I saw a specialist who explained to me diabetes is not caused by sugar unless you've been consuming way too much as like the rabbit I mentioned, 1,200 times the normal daily consumption of a human is more than such a small creature could survive... 1,200 times of almost anything that a human would consume in one day would kill most humans if you think about it regardless of how healthy it is.

    Did you know that it's been proven you can have withdrawals if you stop consuming sugar or that the pancreas can actually be damaged by this? That has been proven by science as the pancreas is forced to work much harder to produce insulin to regulate sugar and when that level of sugar ceases, the body suddenly cannot regulate sugar properly so it can cause your sugar levels to drop or rise rapidly because your pancreas / body is trying to adjust and overdoes it. The pancreas is actually ...











    Well I became Type 2 diabetic from a bee sting as what causes diabetes is damage to the body. In your case, something else is likely to have happened like you said as like you, I drank sugared drinks (including tea) my entire life but didn't drink alcohol other than once in a very blue moon. I never would have thought an allergic reaction to a bee sting could do this and after my doctor proved what it was, I saw a specialist who explained to me diabetes is not caused by sugar unless you've been consuming way too much as like the rabbit I mentioned, 1,200 times the normal daily consumption of a human is more than such a small creature could survive... 1,200 times of almost anything that a human would consume in one day would kill most humans if you think about it regardless of how healthy it is.

    Did you know that it's been proven you can have withdrawals if you stop consuming sugar or that the pancreas can actually be damaged by this? That has been proven by science as the pancreas is forced to work much harder to produce insulin to regulate sugar and when that level of sugar ceases, the body suddenly cannot regulate sugar properly so it can cause your sugar levels to drop or rise rapidly because your pancreas / body is trying to adjust and overdoes it. The pancreas is actually a very sensitive organ and is damaged in this process.

    The artificial sweeteners actually cost more where sugar is practically dirt cheap... when you realize that, suddenly there's got to be another reason they would spend more for artificial sweeteners losing profits because they have to either sell it at the same price or really take a pounding as if it costs more than the same thing with sugar, the market is limited.

    I rarely buy anything that costs more than the same thing with sugar in it. When it's a smaller company that doesn't have the bulk sales to allow them to sell artificially sweetened products at the same price as sugared products... what can they do. I have seen many products hit the market for diabetics where no one buys the items because the cost was sometimes twice as much. It looked like they were trying to exploit diabetics when the real reason was artificial sweeteners simply cost too much and sometimes the process for preparing the product is more complex adding to costs.

    Like you said, I'm not trying to say you are wrong because you said something else could have caused this. But many who are saying these artificial sweeteners are dangerous have never even tried them or don't like the taste so they rarely have tried them... the key here is that unlike in the 70's when Saccharin was advertised as a "replacement" for sugar altogether, todays artificial sweeteners have been marketed as a sugar "substitute" but not stating it is a replacement for sugar. In fact, many of the companies using Aspartame and Splenda didn't want to use them... they were losing consumers because of diabetes and for health reasons due to unhealthy lifestyles they wished to change because they were told sugar was causing them to be unhealthy.

    Kind of a catch 22 isn't it when sugar is killing you and you're being told the artificial sweeteners are killing you when you must have one or the other. That's why it's important to make note that the research that proves artificial sweeteners are harmful are as flawed as the research that says it isn't harmful as we really need to know the truth here as millions of people can't consume sugar or much of it without it doing proven damage or killing us.

    Heck, we had two doctors here die within five years of one another because one had to have his legs amputated and the other refused to use artificial sweeteners but couldn't stop eating sweets... when you have doctors dying from diabetes who treat people with diabetes, it's not hard to see it's a difficult situation.

    Like I said above to greg... maybe we need to start a petition to get the soft drink companies to use Stevia as it is sold as pure Stevia which has a slightly odd but sweet taste and a spiked version with just a little real sugar that makes Stevia taste more like the real thing. It's been proven safe by almost everybody including researchers who worked on artificial sweeteners saying they are ok and not ok.
    (more)
  • The Truth chaoski... 2012/05/06 03:31:38
    The Truth
    +1
    You make good reasonable points. But you (Because of prejudices against 'conspiracy theories') don't know the whole story. These tests and 'studies' are contradicting by design to cause confusion as they have.

    The simplicity that is overlooked is, (Get ready for some logic) there was not as much diabetics, cancer, sickness in general before artificial sweeteners were introduced.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

Living

2013/06/19 02:21:27

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals