Artificial Sweeteners

x_JT_x

You copy and paste this same post every time the question of artifical sweeteners come up. A blanket statement that there is absolutely nothing wrong with them is simply not true.

You won't get sick, you won't get cancer and you certainly won't get fat.

The fact of the matter is that these substances can and do impact different people in different ways. I have developed a sensitivity/allergy to Sucralose. I can't ingest it. Not even so much as a piece of gum. If I do, I get brutal, rip the muscle off the bone leg cramping from it. It happens every single time I ingest anything with Sucralose and that is the only time it ever happens. I bought into the Sucralose is wonderful narrative and it took months of suffering before my docs and I figured out what was causing the cramping.

Thanks for pointing this out to me. I copy and paste that because for, say, 90% of people it is true. The other 10%, like yourself, have a problem with it. It's the same thing as if I said:

It's okay to eat eggs. You won't get sick, you won't get cancer and you certainly won't get fat.

This statement is true. Most people do not have an allergic reaction to eggs. BUT, of course you must consider that 1 person may have an allergy, you must consider that I am not implying it's okay eat 100 eggs a day and you must consider that I am not implying it's okay not train and eat a balanced, nutritionally dense diet.

My point is that it's okay to have sweeteners, provided you are not allergic to them. As you have made a fair point, I will in the future add the caveat that some people are allergic to sweeteners and that one should experiment with them and get their doctor's approval before using them.

I appreciate your willingness to consider another point of view. I bring it up when I see these posts because I was able to ingest sucralose/splenda for a long time before I started having problems with it. As I said, it took months to pinpoint the cause. It's just something for people to consider if they find themselves in a similar situation, that it is possible to have an adverse reaction to them.

kirk_clawson

This may be of interest

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3319034/

chrisdavey

Isn't it kind of silly to just sit here posting different studies back and forth at eachother? Honestly?

It's much more helpful for everyone to input their N=1 experiments.

I agree with percivical that the info is out there. Take a look and make your decision.

For me, as I'm not sensitive to it in any way, I will continue to have my aspartame sweetened food/drinks.

voodooziggy

I like monkfruit extract.

dobyblue

Utter nonsense with no basis in fact.

Actually it's YOUR post that's utter nonsense.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18800291

By the way, Mohamed Abou-Donia, PhD, is Professor in the Department of Pharmacology and Cancer Biology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. What are your quialifications?

Abstract

Splenda is comprised of the high-potency artificial sweetener sucralose (1.1%) and the fillers maltodextrin and glucose. Splenda was administered by oral gavage at 100, 300, 500, or 1000 mg/kg to male Sprague-Dawley rats for 12-wk, during which fecal samples were collected weekly for bacterial analysis and measurement of fecal pH. After 12-wk, half of the animals from each treatment group were sacrificed to determine the intestinal expression of the membrane efflux transporter P-glycoprotein (P-gp) and the cytochrome P-450 (CYP) metabolism system by Western blot. The remaining animals were allowed to recover for an additional 12-wk, and further assessments of fecal microflora, fecal pH, and expression of P-gp and CYP were determined. At the end of the 12-wk treatment period, the numbers of total anaerobes, bifidobacteria, lactobacilli, Bacteroides, clostridia, and total aerobic bacteria were significantly decreased; however, there was no significant treatment effect on enterobacteria. Splenda also increased fecal pH and enhanced the expression of P-gp by 2.43-fold, CYP3A4 by 2.51-fold, and CYP2D1 by 3.49-fold. Following the 12-wk recovery period, only the total anaerobes and bifidobacteria remained significantly depressed, whereas pH values, P-gp, and CYP3A4 and CYP2D1 remained elevated. These changes occurred at Splenda dosages that contained sucralose at 1.1-11 mg/kg (the US FDA Acceptable Daily Intake for sucralose is 5 mg/kg). Evidence indicates that a 12-wk administration of Splenda exerted numerous adverse effects, including (1) reduction in beneficial fecal microflora, (2) increased fecal pH, and (3) enhanced expression levels of P-gp, CYP3A4, and CYP2D1, which are known to limit the bioavailability of orally administered drugs.

dobyblue

Crit Rev Toxicol. 2007;37(8):629-727.
Aspartame: a safety evaluation based on current use levels, regulations, and toxicological and epidemiological studies.
Magnuson BA, Burdock GA, Doull J, Kroes RM, Marsh GM, Pariza MW, Spencer PS, Waddell WJ, Walker R, Williams GM.
Source

Burdock Group, Washington, DC, USA. bmagnuso@umd.edu
Abstract

Aspartame is a methyl ester of a dipeptide used as a synthetic nonnutritive sweetener in over 90 countries worldwide in over 6000 products. The purpose of this investigation was to review the scientific literature on the absorption and metabolism, the current consumption levels worldwide, the toxicology, and recent epidemiological studies on aspartame. Current use levels of aspartame, even by high users in special subgroups, remains well below the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and European Food Safety Authority established acceptable daily intake levels of 50 and 40 mg/kg bw/day, respectively. Consumption of large doses of aspartame in a single bolus dose will have an effect on some biochemical parameters, including plasma amino acid levels and brain neurotransmitter levels. The rise in plasma levels of phenylalanine and aspartic acid following administration of aspartame at doses less than or equal to 50 mg/kg bw do not exceed those observed postprandially. Acute, subacute and chronic toxicity studies with aspartame, and its decomposition products, conducted in mice, rats, hamsters and dogs have consistently found no adverse effect of aspartame with doses up to at least 4000 mg/kg bw/day. Critical review of all carcinogenicity studies conducted on aspartame found no credible evidence that aspartame is carcinogenic. The data from the extensive investigations into the possibility of neurotoxic effects of aspartame, in general, do not support the hypothesis that aspartame in the human diet will affect nervous system function, learning or behavior. Epidemiological studies on aspartame include several case-control studies and one well-conducted prospective epidemiological study with a large cohort, in which the consumption of aspartame was measured. The studies provide no evidence to support an association between aspartame and cancer in any tissue. The weight of existing evidence is that aspartame is safe at current levels of consumption as a nonnutritive sweetener..

This is a great one. Can you actually find someone that was involved with this study that DOESN'T have a glaringly huge conflict of interest?

http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/burdock/

A. Conflicts of Interest

The review was funded by Ajinomoto of Japan. Ajinomoto along with Monsanto have been the world’s biggest producers and sellers of aspartame. The authors of the review had numerous, obvious conflicts of interests as described below. Yet this information was apparently not disclosed to the journal it was published in. The parent company of the journal stated in a press release that, “There were no known conflicts of interest with the sponsor or potential biases of the authors” (Informa 2007).

Gary M. Williams was the Chairman of the American Health Foundation (AHF) which was funded in part by The NutraSweet Company and other companies selling aspartame-containing products (Williams 1987). AHF Board of Directors have included representatives of PepsiCo and the National Soft Drink Association (CSPI 2003). The AHF received more than $163,000 in grants from Philip Morris. “Regarding an AHF press kit prepared by the PR firm, Ruder and Finn, William Ruder writes to Philip Morris: ‘please note that we have handled it so that there is not one single mention of the problem of smoking and health.’” (CSPI 2003, Ruder 1975). In 1987, the American Health Foundation (AHF) convened a conference, Sweeteners: Health Effects where an AHF representative concluded that aspartame and other sweeteners were safe: “It is clear from the perspective of potential cancer risk that the sweeteners described in some detail in this report are safe and wholesome, and perhaps more so, than sugar. As we noted, it is our hope that this workshop will be the basis for international recognition of this fact, so that medical research effects can be directed effectively to areas more relevant to health maintenance.” (Weisburger 1987)

Two of the authors, Robert Kroes and Gary M. Williams joined with Ian C. Munro, the president of the Cantox Health Sciences International corporate advocacy group, to work with Monsanto to review its herbicide, glyphosate (Williams 2000). The work of these authors, directly with Monsanto, was not disclosed in this aspartame review.

Cantox (now known as Intrinsik) specializes “in assisting clients in their efforts to develop, gain regulatory approval and market products nationally or internationally.” Cantox is famous as a corporate advocacy group for whitewashing the dangers of Agent Orange, another toxic product created by Monsanto (Dominion 2007). In 2002, the president of Cantox, Ian C. Munro (see above), worked directly with NutraSweet company employees and consultants on an aspartame review where he stated: “After 30 plus years of rigorous scientific research, it is time to put questions of aspartame safety to rest. ... The continuing debate over such a ‘nonissue’ only serves to divert attention and the allocation of resources from more important health issues that need to be addressed.” (Butchko 2002).

Bernadene Magnuson, the lead author of this review was also the Senior Scientific and Regulatory Consultant for Cantox Health Sciences International, a corporate advocacy group mentioned above (UT 2008). The president of Cantox had already called aspartame toxicity a “nonissue,” yet the lead author of this review worked for Cantox!

Bernadene Magnuson became a member of the corporate advocacy group, The Burdock Group in 2005. (Nutra 2005). The Burdock Group offers its clients “technically rigorous, comprehensive safety and regulatory management of their products. .... The Burdock Group offers the highest quality consulting services for the safety and regulatory issues facing the Food and Beverage, Dietary Supplement, Cosmetics/ Personal Care and Pet Food Industries. Together, we form a cohesive team that offers single-source solutions for your business’s safety assessment and regulatory needs.” (Burdock 2008). This author’s work for pro-aspartame advocacy group, Cantox and corporate advocacy group, Burdock Group was not disclosed in this aspartame review.

Gary Marsh has had researched funded by the Formaldehyde Institute, a trade association consisting of Monsanto, Dupont and other chemical companies (CSPI 2008a, Tataryn 1983). The Formaldehyde Institute raised money for research in an attempt to portray formaldehyde exposure in a good light. Since independent published research has shown that aspartame ingestion leads to formaldehyde accumulation in the brain, kidneys, liver and other organs and tissues (Trocho 1998), Gary Marsh’s research for the Formaldehyde Institute is a serious conflict of interest. This author’s funding from the Monsanto-supported Formaldehyde Institute was not disclosed in this aspartame review.

Michael Pariza was a scientific advisor to the industry-funded advocacy group, “American Council on Science & Health” (ACSH) (CSPI 2008a). According to an article in the Washington Post:

“In 1982, the American Council on Science and Health ( ACSH ) filed a friend-of-the-court brief in a Formaldehyde Institute lawsuit that overturned a federal ban on formaldehyde insulation. .... At least a third of ACSH ’s funding comes from such companies as Allied Corp., Coca-Cola, the National Soft Drink Association, Colgate-Palmolive Co., Dow Chemical Canada, du Pont, Eli Lilly, Exxon, General Mills, General Foods Fund, Gulf Oil, Hershey Foods, Johnson & Johnson, Kellogg’s, Monsanto Fund, Mobil Foundation, M&M/Mars, Pillsbury Foundation, Procter & Gamble, Pfizer, Shell Oil, Upjohn and Velsicol Chemical.” (Kurtz 1984).

Michael Pariza is also a member of the Board of Trustees of the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), a chemical and food company research association funded by Ajinomoto, Monsanto, Coca Cola, PepsiCo, Nestle, and many other food and chemical companies involved in the production, use and sale of aspartame (Nutrition 2003, CSPI 2008b, ILSI 2005). This author’s official positions within industry associations funded by Ajinomoto and Monsanto were not disclosed in this aspartame review.

Ronald Walker spent seven (7) years as the ILSI’s Chairman of their Scientific Committee on Toxicology/Food Safety in Europe (Walker 2001). As mentioned above, ILSI is funded by Monsanto, Ajinomoto, Coca Cola, Pepsi Cola, etc. He was a consultant for DSM Nutritional Products, a company that sold “Twinsweet” from Holland Sweetener Company which is a mixture of aspartame and acesulfame-k. The DSM web site contained aspartame advocacy articles written by Holland Sweetener Company (Walker 2007, DSM 2008). He was a consultant Numico Beheer BV / Danone Group, a company that had a joint venture with Ajinomoto (the sponsor of this review) (Walker 2007, Asia 2007). He is a paid consultant to the corporate public relations group, the European Food Information Council with corporate members that include Coca Cola, PepsiCo, Danone, Nestle, etc. (Walker 2007, EUFIC 2008). Finally, he was a paid consultant for Cantox Health Sciences International (Walker 2005).

Ronald Walker wrote a glowing review of another Ajinomoto product, monosodium glutamate (MSG) for a symposium funded by an Ajinomoto managed trade group, International Glutamate Technical Committee (IGTC) (Walker 2000, Ishii 2003). He has participated in another aspartame review where he claimed that aspartame was safe (SCF 2002). This author’s funding from companies selling aspartame, official positions with associations who are supported by aspartame manufacturers and marketers as well as his past positions defending aspartame was not disclosed in this aspartame review.

John Doull was a paid consultant of Monsanto, a member of the Monsanto-funded ACSH Advisory Board, and a Trustee of the Monsanto- and Ajinomoto-funded corporate research association, ILSI (Tobacco 1993, CSPI 2008). This author’s consultancy with Monsanto and official positional within Monsanto- and Ajinomoto- funded associations was not disclosed in this aspartame review.

A reader might ask, “Is it possible for there to be an unbiased review of aspartame, made by Ajinomoto and Monsanto, where the review is funded by Ajinomoto, authors have done paid work for Monsanto, several authors have offical positions in trade and research associations funded by Monsanto, Ajinomoto, Coca Cola, PepsiCo, etc., several authors work for corporate advocacy groups, one of which called aspartame toxicity a ‘nonissue,’ and one author who consults for companies that sell aspartame and in the past has said that aspartame is safe?” I think a reasonable answer might be, “No! Are you kidding me?!”

annasor70

What I don't get is why anyone would bother DEFENDING fake sweeteners? Isn't the fact that they are chemically made enough to make you want to avoid them, regardless of what is published out there? Isn't it better to put natural things into one's body generally? They are gentler, can even be healthy and taste better. Isn't that enough? Why drink or eat chemicals if one can avoid them?
Don't we all want to have strong healthy bodies for LIFE on the inside as well as be slim and fit on the outside?

I use date sugar, maple syrup, fruit juice and honey in moderation. When I am indulging in vegan baked goods, I have organic sugar but in very small amounts. I think it's best to have as little sugar as possible also.
Date sugar is actually very healthy and tasty
I have a smoothie every morning which is absolutely delicious and gives me energy for ballet classes every day ( if energy is what people are after?)
Try a smoothie with a little fresh pressed juice,water, raw cacao powder, kale or spinach, wild blueberries, flax seed, white tea leaves (and a raw protein powder if you like...) This will give you lots of life force and energy!
I can dance for two hours and then take a hike and don't need sugary and caffeinated drinks. Think living for longevity and REAL health.. ...

ddky

For some people they may not cause a problem. For me, I discovered that aspartame caused me to have mini seizures. The weird thing is that when I gave up artificial sweetners, a menstrual problem that I had had for over 10 years went away that same month and never came back.... pretty weird coincidence. I am go grateful to figure out what the problem was instead of being on seizure meds the rest of my life.

melindasuefritz

they arent fine ........... they can give u headaches, seizures and more

melindasuefritz

i dont eat any fake sugar




Trying to keep your weight down and trying to be healthy can be totally different things. There was a time in my life when I believed that sugar-free foods and drinks were actually good for me. I was drinking sugar-free Red Bulls and dumping Splenda into my morning coffee like my life depended on it. I'm a little embarrassed to admit that I considered myself healthy then.

I always heard negative things about artificial sweeteners in passing, but dodged conversations about it and pretended like I didn't hear or read anything knocking the merit of the products. What can I say? I was addicted to caffeine and totally uninterested in ditching my habit. (And who doesn't love a low-calorie caffeine fix?)

But after learning a thing or two about artificial sweeteners, I've left my sugar-free energy drink toting days behind me.

Some facts about artificial sweeteners that made me change my mind:

1. They are chemicals or natural compounds that replace the sweetness of sugar, without all of the calories. But sometimes the label 'sugar-free' masks calories present in the food or drink. Of course you can always read the product's label, but believe it or not, there are a whole lot of people out there who think that sugar-free or fat-free means low-calorie. On top of that, there are some recent studies that have shown that artificial sweeteners can actually increase your appetite. And then there are sugar-free products with ingredients that can raise your blood sugar dramatically—like the white flour in sugar-free cookies. All in all, 'sugar-free' doesn't always mean 'diet-friendly'.

2. Aspartame (NutraSweet, Equal, NatraSweet, Canderel, Spoonfuls, DiabetiSweet) is a common chemical sweetener with possible side effects that sound like they're out of a horror movie. From hallucinations to seizures to brain tumors, it is hardly worth consuming for the sake of saved calories.

3. Sucralose (Otherwise known as Splenda, my past-sweetener of choice), is scary. Recent research suggests that Splenda can enlarge both the liver and kidneys and shrink the thymus glands. Sucralose breaks down into small amounts of dichlorofructose, which has not been tested adequately tested in humans. Splenda reportedly can cause skin rashes, panic, diarrhea, headaches, bladder issues, stomach pain, and those side effects don't even sum it up.

Think this sounds bad? Do some further research. Most artificial sweeteners on store shelves are accompanied by numerous side-effect stories. (Some recent studies suggest they cause cancer. Should something as serious as cancer really be overlooked?) Research also suggests that they actually cause overeating among consumers.

In addition to all of this, consider the waste involved in the industry of artificially sweetening. Ever stepped into a coffee shop and noticed a mound of sugar substitute packets building on the counter or in the trash? We've been wasting one of our most precious resources for the sake of a sweetener that can harm our bodies and prevent weight loss. It sounds unfathomable, but true nonetheless.

What you can do instead to get your sugar fix:

Turn to natural sweeteners for your drinks and food alike. Honey, organic maple syrup, molasses, date sugar, brown rice syrup, and stevia are just a few natural sweeteners you can turn to. Not only will they wreak less havoc on your body, but your support of these sweeteners instead will, eventually, help to slow the production of toxic artificial sweeteners--which are significantly less delicious in my opinion anyway.
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

FunkyTobias

Utter nonsense with no basis in fact.

Actually it's YOUR post that's utter nonsense.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18800291

By the way, Mohamed Abou-Donia, PhD, is Professor in the Department of Pharmacology and Cancer Biology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. What are your quialifications?

Abstract

Splenda is comprised of the high-potency artificial sweetener sucralose (1.1%) and the fillers maltodextrin and glucose. Splenda was administered by oral gavage at 100, 300, 500, or 1000 mg/kg to male Sprague-Dawley rats for 12-wk, during which fecal samples were collected weekly for bacterial analysis and measurement of fecal pH. After 12-wk, half of the animals from each treatment group were sacrificed to determine the intestinal expression of the membrane efflux transporter P-glycoprotein (P-gp) and the cytochrome P-450 (CYP) metabolism system by Western blot. The remaining animals were allowed to recover for an additional 12-wk, and further assessments of fecal microflora, fecal pH, and expression of P-gp and CYP were determined. At the end of the 12-wk treatment period, the numbers of total anaerobes, bifidobacteria, lactobacilli, Bacteroides, clostridia, and total aerobic bacteria were significantly decreased; however, there was no significant treatment effect on enterobacteria. Splenda also increased fecal pH and enhanced the expression of P-gp by 2.43-fold, CYP3A4 by 2.51-fold, and CYP2D1 by 3.49-fold. Following the 12-wk recovery period, only the total anaerobes and bifidobacteria remained significantly depressed, whereas pH values, P-gp, and CYP3A4 and CYP2D1 remained elevated. These changes occurred at Splenda dosages that contained sucralose at 1.1-11 mg/kg (the US FDA Acceptable Daily Intake for sucralose is 5 mg/kg). Evidence indicates that a 12-wk administration of Splenda exerted numerous adverse effects, including (1) reduction in beneficial fecal microflora, (2) increased fecal pH, and (3) enhanced expression levels of P-gp, CYP3A4, and CYP2D1, which are known to limit the bioavailability of orally administered drugs.

Are you a rat?

Rat studies are useful insofar as they are hyphtesis generating, and a means to secure funding for further study.

Nothing more.

FunkyTobias

This is a great one. Can you actually find someone that was involved with this study that DOESN'T have a glaringly huge conflict of interest?

EVERY study has potential conflicts of interest. Studies are expensive, and they can only happen when they secure funding. A conflict of interest may justify looking at the methodology and/or conclusions with closer scrituiny, but it does not automatically give you a reason to dismiss the findings.

http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/burdock/

So funny that you decry conflict of interest, then post a link to woo merchants, as if they don't have an agenda.

AvsFreak

Interesting read. Definitely something to think about. I don't drink or smoke, never have, but was recently diagnosed with an atypical meningioma (brain tumor). I suppose it could be from pollution, fluorescent lighting, pesticides or something else, but I really do go to town on the "diet" stuff and splenda to save calories. Just makes me think. I used to hate diet soda, now it's all I drink and the regular stuff tastes like syrup. Maybe I could get used to not having everything so sweet and eventually cut it all out.

I guess you can't prove it hurts you, but not having it can't hurt you either.

dobyblue

Utter nonsense with no basis in fact.

Actually it's YOUR post that's utter nonsense.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18800291

By the way, Mohamed Abou-Donia, PhD, is Professor in the Department of Pharmacology and Cancer Biology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. What are your quialifications?

Abstract

Splenda is comprised of the high-potency artificial sweetener sucralose (1.1%) and the fillers maltodextrin and glucose. Splenda was administered by oral gavage at 100, 300, 500, or 1000 mg/kg to male Sprague-Dawley rats for 12-wk, during which fecal samples were collected weekly for bacterial analysis and measurement of fecal pH. After 12-wk, half of the animals from each treatment group were sacrificed to determine the intestinal expression of the membrane efflux transporter P-glycoprotein (P-gp) and the cytochrome P-450 (CYP) metabolism system by Western blot. The remaining animals were allowed to recover for an additional 12-wk, and further assessments of fecal microflora, fecal pH, and expression of P-gp and CYP were determined. At the end of the 12-wk treatment period, the numbers of total anaerobes, bifidobacteria, lactobacilli, Bacteroides, clostridia, and total aerobic bacteria were significantly decreased; however, there was no significant treatment effect on enterobacteria. Splenda also increased fecal pH and enhanced the expression of P-gp by 2.43-fold, CYP3A4 by 2.51-fold, and CYP2D1 by 3.49-fold. Following the 12-wk recovery period, only the total anaerobes and bifidobacteria remained significantly depressed, whereas pH values, P-gp, and CYP3A4 and CYP2D1 remained elevated. These changes occurred at Splenda dosages that contained sucralose at 1.1-11 mg/kg (the US FDA Acceptable Daily Intake for sucralose is 5 mg/kg). Evidence indicates that a 12-wk administration of Splenda exerted numerous adverse effects, including (1) reduction in beneficial fecal microflora, (2) increased fecal pH, and (3) enhanced expression levels of P-gp, CYP3A4, and CYP2D1, which are known to limit the bioavailability of orally administered drugs.

Are you a rat?

Rat studies are useful insofar as they are hyphtesis generating, and a means to secure funding for further study.

Nothing more.

I don't think you're in research, rats and other mammalian species provide many uses in studies, depending on how closely a particular species matches humans biologically. Sprawley rats for example are useful for cancer tests because they are similarly prone to tumors as humans are, hence why they were used in the recent Seralini toxicology study on genetically modified corn. Some types of monkeys are useful to compare brain tissue toxicology analysis.

dobyblue

This is a great one. Can you actually find someone that was involved with this study that DOESN'T have a glaringly huge conflict of interest?

EVERY study has potential conflicts of interest. Studies are expensive, and they can only happen when they secure funding. A conflict of interest may justify looking at the methodology and/or conclusions with closer scrituiny, but it does not automatically give you a reason to dismiss the findings.

http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/burdock/

So funny that you decry conflict of interest, then post a link to woo merchants, as if they don't have an agenda.

So funny that you use misdirection and/or deflection instead of actually looking at the GROSS conflicts of interest here, each one which can be verified with but only a few moments searching the internet.

Using the word "woo" to describe verifiable information is usually the sign of an industry plant.

curly1986

I used to have artificial sweeteners in my tea and coffee and only drank diet juice, and a lot of it! For years I had itchiness! My thighs were the worst but I had it on my stomach, calfs and arms as well. But I just put it down to being sensitive to the perfumes and stuff in my laundry products (although I did try swapping those for "sensitive" products). Then I happened upon an article about the possible side effects of aspartame. My brain didnt quite connect the 2 together but I did decide to stop the artificial sweeteners because there was a lot of scary stuff in the article. Few weeks later I noticed my everything had stopped itching and they've been fine ever since.

Give me real sugar over artificial sweetener any day!! Even my daughter doesn't get artificial sweeteners because they make her wild! And 5 year olds are wild enough on their own! :laugh: So no Fruit Shoots for her!