In view of the fact that, since becoming a diabetic with a sweet tooth - paradoxically, I seemed to develop a sweeter tooth after becoming diabetic - I am reliant on sweeteners to satisfy my yearning. There are however a number of disturbing concerns about nearly all of them. A bit frightening really.
There seems to be fairly poor follow up by the authorities such as the FDA in the US or the FSA in the UK once a product is approved for use as a food additive. Despite supposedly monitoring the various adverse reactions, the reality is somewhat different.
For instance, Aspartame is a case in point. There seems to be at least a question mark over the US authorities' actions - or inactions - in this case. Read some background on Aspartame and its successor, Neotame at http://www.holisticmed.com/neotame/toxin.html - Is Neotame a Neurotoxin Like Aspartame?
There is a report about Aspartame at http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/suffer.faq - "Reported Aspartame Toxicity Effects". It's pretty heavy - not to mention depressing - reading. The part concerning the effect on pilots is more than a bit disconcerting.
Most people are probably aware of the kinds of problems that have been reported with cyclamates. They have been reported as being carcinogenic and are still banned in the US. They are freely available in the UK and europe however. In fact Tesco, the UK's biggest retailer (and one of the biggest in the world) markets their own brand sweetener which is based on cyclamate. That having been said, it appears from the confusing data that is available that more modern sweeteners pose a higher risk.
Splenda is one of the latest in the long line of sugar substitutes. Although manufactured from sugar by swapping 3 chlorine atoms for 3 hydroxyl groups (I just thought I would slip that in for all you chemistry buffs), it is still said to be suitable for diabetics. Some claims have been made, however, that the end product is not what it ought to be.
Splenda, or sucralose, is a chlorocarbon. Chlorocarbons have a less than prestigious history, being known for causing organ, reproductive and genetic damage. Whether sucralose (Splenda) is as safe as the manufacturer claims (they would say that, wouldn't they) remains to be seen as time goes on. There is more info here at http://www.splendaexposed.com/
If you've checked out all the references I've listed then I'll bet that, like me, your head will be spinning and you will be reaching for the aspirin rather than the sweeteners.
But, there is one sweetener that I have not yet mentioned - saccharin. This product has been around for well over 100 years and is my personal choice to sweeten my tea or coffee. Some people complain of an after taste but i must say that I don't notice that. Maybe I've just got used to it.
Now the history of saccharin is not all sweetness and light. Back in the 1970's there was a cancer scare in the US. The following extract is from an article on artificial sweeteners on Medecinenet.com:
"There was a great deal of controversy surrounding the safety of saccharin back in the '70s. In 1977, research showed bladder tumors in male rats with the ingestion of saccharin. The FDA proposed a ban on saccharin based on the Delaney Clause of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, enacted in 1958. This clause prohibits the addition to the human food supply of any chemical that had caused cancer in humans or animals. Congress intervened after public opposition to the ban and allowed saccharin to remain in the food supply as long as the label carried this warning: "Use of this product may be hazardous to your health. This product contains saccharin which has been determined to cause cancer in laboratory animals." Further research was required to confirm the tumor findings.
Since then, more than 30 human studies have been completed and found that the results found in rats did not translate to humans, making saccharin safe for human consumption. The original study published in 1977 has since been criticized for the very high dosages, that were hundreds of times higher than "normal" ingestion for humans, that were given to the rats. In 2000, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) of the National Institutes of Health concluded that saccharin should be removed from the list of potential carcinogens. The warning has now been removed from saccharin-containing products."
So, at the end of the day, when the aspirins take effect, it is entirely down to personal preference. As someone once said, "You pays your money and you takes your choice. I suppose you could always take it black without!!
Just before leaving the subject, I should point out that there are other sugar substitutes which are produced from natural resources and therefore thought to perfectly safe. Not all are suitable for use in tea or coffee though. They also tend to be expensive. These are just a few to note: honey, liquorice root, molasses. One which has probably got the most potential is Stevia. This is from a South American plant and has been used by the local natives for hundreds of years. For more info check out http://www.stevia.net/ - The Stevia Story.
There seems to be fairly poor follow up by the authorities such as the FDA in the US or the FSA in the UK once a product is approved for use as a food additive. Despite supposedly monitoring the various adverse reactions, the reality is somewhat different.
For instance, Aspartame is a case in point. There seems to be at least a question mark over the US authorities' actions - or inactions - in this case. Read some background on Aspartame and its successor, Neotame at http://www.holisticmed.com/neotame/toxin.html - Is Neotame a Neurotoxin Like Aspartame?
There is a report about Aspartame at http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/suffer.faq - "Reported Aspartame Toxicity Effects". It's pretty heavy - not to mention depressing - reading. The part concerning the effect on pilots is more than a bit disconcerting.
Most people are probably aware of the kinds of problems that have been reported with cyclamates. They have been reported as being carcinogenic and are still banned in the US. They are freely available in the UK and europe however. In fact Tesco, the UK's biggest retailer (and one of the biggest in the world) markets their own brand sweetener which is based on cyclamate. That having been said, it appears from the confusing data that is available that more modern sweeteners pose a higher risk.
Splenda is one of the latest in the long line of sugar substitutes. Although manufactured from sugar by swapping 3 chlorine atoms for 3 hydroxyl groups (I just thought I would slip that in for all you chemistry buffs), it is still said to be suitable for diabetics. Some claims have been made, however, that the end product is not what it ought to be.
Splenda, or sucralose, is a chlorocarbon. Chlorocarbons have a less than prestigious history, being known for causing organ, reproductive and genetic damage. Whether sucralose (Splenda) is as safe as the manufacturer claims (they would say that, wouldn't they) remains to be seen as time goes on. There is more info here at http://www.splendaexposed.com/
If you've checked out all the references I've listed then I'll bet that, like me, your head will be spinning and you will be reaching for the aspirin rather than the sweeteners.
But, there is one sweetener that I have not yet mentioned - saccharin. This product has been around for well over 100 years and is my personal choice to sweeten my tea or coffee. Some people complain of an after taste but i must say that I don't notice that. Maybe I've just got used to it.
Now the history of saccharin is not all sweetness and light. Back in the 1970's there was a cancer scare in the US. The following extract is from an article on artificial sweeteners on Medecinenet.com:
"There was a great deal of controversy surrounding the safety of saccharin back in the '70s. In 1977, research showed bladder tumors in male rats with the ingestion of saccharin. The FDA proposed a ban on saccharin based on the Delaney Clause of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, enacted in 1958. This clause prohibits the addition to the human food supply of any chemical that had caused cancer in humans or animals. Congress intervened after public opposition to the ban and allowed saccharin to remain in the food supply as long as the label carried this warning: "Use of this product may be hazardous to your health. This product contains saccharin which has been determined to cause cancer in laboratory animals." Further research was required to confirm the tumor findings.
Since then, more than 30 human studies have been completed and found that the results found in rats did not translate to humans, making saccharin safe for human consumption. The original study published in 1977 has since been criticized for the very high dosages, that were hundreds of times higher than "normal" ingestion for humans, that were given to the rats. In 2000, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) of the National Institutes of Health concluded that saccharin should be removed from the list of potential carcinogens. The warning has now been removed from saccharin-containing products."
So, at the end of the day, when the aspirins take effect, it is entirely down to personal preference. As someone once said, "You pays your money and you takes your choice. I suppose you could always take it black without!!
Just before leaving the subject, I should point out that there are other sugar substitutes which are produced from natural resources and therefore thought to perfectly safe. Not all are suitable for use in tea or coffee though. They also tend to be expensive. These are just a few to note: honey, liquorice root, molasses. One which has probably got the most potential is Stevia. This is from a South American plant and has been used by the local natives for hundreds of years. For more info check out http://www.stevia.net/ - The Stevia Story.
This post first appeared on No Sugar For Me Thanks. Type2 Diabetes Info, please read the originial post: here
