Artificial Sweeteners

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..

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?!”

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

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.