Okay so yesterday, as I sat down in the lobby of my dorm with some friends, I made some tea. I reached for the splenda packet and was instantly accosted. I was told how I was going to get cancer, etc, etc. My reply was "At least I'll die skinny."
So this morning when was restocking my fridge with Coke Zero I wondered. Does this stuff really cause cancer. Sure I heard Sweet and Low could. As well as some others, but I thought Splenda was safe.
So like any good educated woman I looked it up and researched sweeteners and the link to cancer. And before I provide this evidence I just want to tell Caitlin "HA! I TOLD you so!!!!!"
Saccharin
Studies in laboratory rats during the early 1970s linked saccharin with the development of bladder cancer. For this reason, Congress mandated that further studies of saccharin be performed and required that all food containing saccharin bear the following 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." Subsequent studies in rats showed an increased incidence of urinary bladder cancer at high doses of saccharin consumption, especially in male rats. However, mechanistic studies (studies that examine how a substance works in the body) have shown that these results apply only to rats. Human epidemiology studies (studies of patterns, causes, and control of diseases in groups of people) have shown no consistent evidence that saccharin is associated with bladder cancer incidence.
Because the bladder tumors seen in rats are due to a mechanism not relevant to humans, and because there is no clear evidence that saccharin causes cancer in humans, saccharin was delisted in 2000 from the U.S. National Toxicology Program's Report on Carcinogens , where it had been listed since 1981 as a substance reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen (a substance known to cause cancer). More information about the delisting of saccharin is available at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/eleventh/append/appb.pdf on the Internet. The delisting led to legislation, which was signed into law on December 21, 2000, repealing the warning label requirement for products containing saccharin.
So Sacharin=bad...maybe.
Aspartame
Aspartame, distributed under several trade names (e.g., Nutrasweet® and Equal®), was approved in 1981 by the FDA after numerous tests showed that it did not cause cancer or other adverse effects in laboratory animals. Questions regarding the safety of aspartame were renewed by a 1996 report suggesting that an increase in the number of people with brain tumors between 1975 and 1992 might be associated with the introduction and use of this sweetener in the United States. However, an analysis of then-current NCI statistics showed that the overall incidence of brain and central nervous system cancers began to rise in 1973, 8 years prior to the approval of aspartame, and continued to rise until 1985. Moreover, increases in overall brain cancer incidence occurred primarily in people age 70 and older, a group that was not exposed to the highest doses of aspartame since its introduction. These data do not establish a clear link between the consumption of aspartame and the development of brain tumors.
Recently, a laboratory experiment found more lymphomas and leukemias in rats fed very high doses of aspartame (equivalent to drinking 8 to 2,083 cans of diet soda daily) (1) . However, there were some inconsistencies in the findings. For example, the cancers found in the treated rats were not specific to aspartame, and the number of cancer cases did not rise with increasing amounts of aspartame as would be expected. Subsequently, the NCI examined human data from the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study of over half a million retirees. Increasing consumption of aspartame-containing beverages was not associated with the development of lymphoma, leukemia, or brain cancer (2) . More information about aspartame can be found in the FDA Statement on Aspartame, which is available at http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/tpaspart.html on the Internet.
Aspartame=bad in high dose. Like with anything always use in moderation.
Acesulfame potassium, Sucralose, and Neotame
In addition to saccharin and aspartame, there are three other artificial sweeteners currently permitted for use in food in the United States. Acesulfame potassium (also known as ACK, Sweet One®, and Sunett®) was approved by the FDA in 1988 for use in specific food and beverage categories, and was later approved as a general purpose sweetener (except in meat and poultry) in 2002. Sucralose (also known as Splenda®) was approved by the FDA as a tabletop sweetener in 1998, followed by approval as a general purpose sweetener in 1999. Neotame, which is similar to aspartame, was approved by the FDA as a general purpose sweetener (except in meat and poultry) in 2002. Before approving these sweeteners, the FDA reviewed more than 100 safety studies that were conducted on each sweetener, including studies to assess cancer risk. The results of these studies showed no evidence that these sweeteners cause cancer or pose any other threat to human health.
Splenda=SAFE!!! Yay! I can diet with an emphasise on DIEt.
So go on people drink up your tea and reach for that happy little yellow packet.
Source:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/artificial-sweeteners
i love splenda. i probably couldn't live without it. mmm, sweetener addiction.
Aspartame caused a man-made chemical imbalance on my mom, she drank nothing but diet pepsi for years and now she has severe anxiety and panic attacks, and now it's genetic. because i was diagnosted with the same chemical imbalance when i was fourteen.
Okay so you first state that diet pepsi cause thus then you stated its genetic cause you now have it. Was she prego while drining diet pepsi?
she was drinking it at seventeen up until 24, when she had my brother, i however am only one of two of the six kids that have it.
That doesn't sound logical at all. She could easily have had some other thing wrong. If that were true than maybe we can blame diet drinks for depression.
"I am a Stephens Woman."
Idk, its what the doctors "said."
drinking diet pepsi the cause of it I don't think so. I am 29 and have drank diet pepsi since I was 13 and there is nothing wrong with me. So many doctors blam cancer on things that does not cause it because they do not know what causes it. i don't think that can be passed down. i think she should find another doctor.
Splenda is good for Diabetics, like myself. It allows us to sweeten things without fear of cancer.
Splenda was first marketed as the alternative to Sweet N Low and its cancer risk. Now their push is "Tastes like sugar because it is made from sugar."
It is also one of the few sweeteners (other than actual sugar) that you can cook with.
I wish Diet Mt. Dew would swap over to splenda. i miss Mt. dew. throwback to my computer tech days. heh.
Anything can cause cancer really, if you have that gene that starts reproducing like crazy, then you will get cancer otherwise there's no problem!
Oh my god. You scared me. I really thought Splenda and other sweeteners cause cancer. Phew, I should be more careful of what I eat. Then again, food is every where these days. Smoking is common too. I might get second hand lung cancer from them. Sigh. I wonder if smokers actually care. Anyway, great research. haha.
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mylot.com/?ref=truelife
The FDA is so in bed with the companies who produce these products, it's not funny! Why would you trust a regulatory agency that has consistently and repeatedly failed to protect the American people to the tune of THOUSANDS of deaths from Vioxx when they were totally aware of the problem beforehand? C'mon kids, do your homework better than that! I recommend reading www.thetruthaboutsplenda.com and www.mercola.com for starters to research the true "Sweet Deceptions" we are being fed about sweeteners. http://www.mercola.com/2000/dec/3/sucralose_dangers.htm
Considering that Splenda bears more chemical similarity to DDT than it does to sugar, are you willing to bet your health on this data? Remember that fat soluble substances, such as DDT, can remain in your fat for decades and devastate your health. Now the point I want you to understand here, because it is really important, is that Splenda is not a drug and is only a food additive. As such the number of studies required to receive FDA approval is substantially less than drug.
Vioxx had an order of magnitude of more comprehensive clinical trials than Splenda ever did, and despite this rigorous approval process it still killed 55,000 people. McNeil Nutritionals, in their marketing pitch for Splenda emphasizes that Splenda has endured some of the most rigorous testing to date for any food additive. Enough so to convince the average consumer that it is in fact safe. They claim that over 100 studies have been conducted on Splenda. What they don't tell you is that most of the studies are on animals. Because Splenda has chlorine added to intensify it's sweetness, I have included this information on the toxicity of chlorine too...
The real issue is not just how toxic chlorine itself is but how the unintended byproducts of chlorine (organochlorines and dioxins) remain in the environment. They are persistent in the environment; they do not break down readily and therefore bio-accumulate.This can create a very serious health problem; the dioxins and other toxic chemicals, when consumed, accumulate in the fatty tissues.
These contaminants are also hormone disrupters because they mimic estrogen. The EPA has observed and documented hormonal imbalance, suppressed immune systems, reproductive infertility and alterations in fetal development of animals. In viewing the big picture, these factors are perhaps the most frightening results from the widespread use of chlorine. Our bodies are very good at metabolizing many things. Through special enzymes, our bodies are able to rid themselves of many environmental toxic substances that we come into contact with daily. However, dioxins (and other organochlorine compounds) aren't included. Even if we are exposed to very low levels, dioxins remain in the body and accumulate.
The EPA is now saying that this is soon to become a major health risk problem. The cumulative effects of dioxin in humans have been linked to
birth defects
cancer
reproductive disorders
immune system breakdown
Chlorine Facts:
Dioxin, a chemical byproduct of the manufacturing of chlorinebleached paper, is believed to be the single most carcinogenic chemical known to science.
When you open the door of your dishwasher after washing, toxic volatized chlorine from dish detergent and tap water is released into the air.
Thanks to chlorine pollution, Americans ingest a daily amount of dioxin that is already 300 to 600 times greater than the EPA's so-called "safe" dose.
The US Environmental Protection Agency has found dioxin to be 300,000 times more potent as a carcinogen than DDT.
Dioxin has been linked to endometriosis, immune system impairment, diabetes, neurotoxicity, birth defects, decreased fertility, and reproductive dysfunction in both women and men.
Studies show that 40-70 percent of the dioxin in bleached coffee filters can leach into your coffee; dioxin found in paper milk cartons also leaches into the milk you drink.
Cancer-causing chemicals like chlorine found in many household products such as coffee filters, disposable diapers, paper towels, and bathroom tissue are readily absorbed through the skin.
Dr. Mercola's Comment:
Sucralose, the supposed "safe" replacement for Nutrasweet, is starting to receive much press recently as it is being promoted more and more.
I was just interviewed by CBS for a piece that they will be publishing on their website very shortly.
It is important to recognize that Sucralose is basically chlorinated table sugar and as such, may have many of the risks of chlorine discussed above. In addition, it is contributing to environmental chlorine pollution as well.
It is important to recognize that Sucralose is not the safe chemical it is being promoted as. I would advise caution as many have started to report adverse reactions to it.
The other issue with chlorine is of course its more common use as a water disinfectant, which is one of the main reasons why most of us need to use water filters of some sort.
With summer upon us one must not neglect the use in swimming pools. Because the exposure is generally longer, this is a much more serious issue for those who swim regularly, than drinking tap water.
I hope this information about "Chlorinated Sugar" or Splenda(Sucralose) will help someone live a longer more healthy life. Please take care to read labels on many "healthy" products such as Propel Fitness Water and Fuze drinks. Everytime I look at a so-called "health drink" I often find sucralose in the ingredients list but all they tell you on the label is "sugar-free" or "no sugar added". Buyer Beware!
And finally, check out these testimonials of people who feel they have been harmed by Splenda. http://www.mercola.com/2000/dec/3/sucralose_testimonials.htm
Considering that Splenda bears more chemical similarity to DDT than it does to sugar, are you willing to bet your health on this data?
Splenda does NOT bear more chemical similarity to DDT. DDT has benzene rings in it. Splenda looks identical to sucrose, except for the fact that the free hydrogens are replaced with chlorines. Saturated 6-carbon rings (which make up glucose and fructose, the two parts of sucrose) are not bad for you. Benzene is very bad for you, because it has a special sort of stability due to the three double bonds in the ring. It is a carcinogen itself (and so they make us take all these precautions when dealing with it in O-Chem lab).
I'm weary about Splenda, because of it's structure. However, it's important to note that table salt contains chloride ions. The only difference between those and those in splenda is that those in salt are ions, and readily dissociate in water, and those in splenda are covalently bonded to the carbon ring, and thus does not readily dissociate in water.
I'm also weary about the biproducts of the making of Splenda. But I doubt it's any more dangerous than the other synthetic things we put into our body. And it's certainly sweeter.
~C
Read the news
Nominate a featured blogger!
in the case of splenda they were sued for the quote Splenda was first marketed as the alternative to Sweet N Low and its cancer risk. Now their push is "Tastes like sugar because it is made from sugar."
And did in fact loose after the product is finished there is no sugar produc in splenda
Once upon a time in my little mind.
By me Kaity Kat