I stand corrected.
Are there any examples of a drug or food ingredient being recognized as safe (in recomended amounts) by the authorities for 2 or 3 decades, then being pulled from shelves because of new evidence that it is dangerous?
Opium, morphine, heroin, Sudan red, cinnamyl anthranilate, tobacco, safrole, etc. etc.
As for Aspartame, follow up studies in rats have supported the concern that ‘[Aspartame’s] multipotential carcinogenicity at a dose level close to the acceptable daily intake for humans… when life-span exposure to [Aspartame] begins during fetal life, its carcinogenic effects are increased.’ (Soffritti et al. 2007)
>Opium, morphine, heroin, Sudan red, cinnamyl anthranilate, tobacco, safrole, etc. etc.
Most of those the risks were known but socially accepted. Opium’s addictive potential has been know for thousands of years. Its society that didnt accept addiction as a lifestyle as it progressed.
It’s a lot more than several million. From this link:
If we assume an average size for a soft drink is 400ml, that’s a worldwide average of 3.78 billion per day.
Everyone knew Opiates were dangerous and addictive, but in the early years of the USA things were far more libertarian. Even today, there’s a move to legalize those drugs.
cinnamyl anthranilate is so far only proven dangerous in studies to rats. I think it has recently been pulled from the normal GRAS label.
“This is interpreted to indicate that these flavoring agents have a clear threshold for carcinogenicity in animals that is well above the levels currently approved for use in foods; consequently, these animal studies should not be a cause for concern for carcinogenicity of these compounds in humans.”
Similar for Sudan Red G
Here’s the dope on Safrole: wiki
Safrole is regarded by the U.S. government to be a weak carcinogen in rats.[4] It naturally occurs in a variety of spices such as basil, cinnamon, nutmeg, and pepper. In that role safrole is believed, although not proven, to make a small but measurable contribution to the overall incidence of human cancer, equal to the hazards presented by orange juice and tomatoes.[5] In the United States, it was once widely used as a food additive in root beer, sassafras tea, and other common goods, but was banned by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) after its carcinogenicity in rats was discovered.
And tobacco has also long known to be dangerous- it was the proof that it was carcinogenic which was the fairly new data point.
So- several things long known to be dangerous, and two things which were not in very common use but do cause cancer in large doses in rats. So- ya got nothing.
The medical dangers of opium beyond obvious addiction, weren’t widely recognized, or in any way understood, until the 19th and 20th century. Before then it was sold in all number of medical cure-alls, with very little knowledge of its physiological implications. And to suggest that Sudan red, safrole, cinnamyl anthranilate etc. were ‘socially accepted’ risks isn’t credible.
Whilst most meta-analyses support the view that Aspartame is safe for human consumption below current recommended daily intakes, there are a handful of controversial studies which present evidence suggesting carcinogenicity in rats at levels not significantly above RDI, if the results translate into humans.
Yes very much so.
That means you drank Tab. Ewww, saccharin taste.
I don’t see your point. I was just answering the question as to what physiologically harmful drugs and additives, or at least with some evidence to suggest as much, had been used without full knowledge of their implications and are now restricted or banned. I just picked a few names I could recall out of a hat. I’m sure I could track down some far more dangerous, and now prohibited, food additives if I so wished. Or how about thalidomide?
The question was "Are there any examples of a drug or food ingredient being recognized as safe (in recomended amounts) by the authorities for 2 or 3 decades, then being pulled from shelves because of new evidence that it is dangerous?"
There is a difference between “recognized as safe” and “full knowledge of the dangers”. Many of the items you listed were never “recognized as safe”, and the others have dangers which are more possible than proven.
Aspartame has been tested over and over and over. It’s likely safer than sugar- when used in normal amounts.
No drug is ‘safe’, and unrecognized risk factors can crop up even after extensive medical testing. Prozac has been dispensed since 1986, and other anti-depressants since the 1950s. Recognition of SSRI discontinuation syndrome and higher rates of suicide has only occurred relatively recently, and proven as side-effects.
Still, I don’t doubt that Aspartame is unlikely to give you cancer at current the RDI, but not all the scientific evidence points the same way.
That is not my understanding of “confidence” in statistics. A “confidence interval” is a measurement of error in the statistical model of the existing actual data. There’s a difference between that and having a “confidence” in future prediction of safety from unknown side effects.
Aspartame may be safe but I don’t think it’s correct to misuse “confidence interval” to make your case.
From… constantly high levels of insulin? Nobody is claiming artificial sweeteners are the only cause of insulin resistance.
Interesting how many of these harmful or potentially hazardous substances are “natural” (i.e. opium, tobacco and safrole (found in sassafras). Aspartame is a simple compound made up of two amino acids, which while natural in themselves become “unnatural” when combined. :rolleyes:
This is one of a number of anti-aspartame studies churned out by the Ramazzini Foundation in Italy. While the Ramazzini group has the enthusiastic support of aspartame doubters and outright crazies, the group’s researchers have come under criticism for sloppy methodology and poor science in general. Some of this is noted in the European Food Safety Authority’s recent statement on aspartame:
*"The European Food Safety (Authority) (EFSA) has once again confirmed the safety of aspartame. After a comprehensive review of data, EFSA’s Scientific Panel on Food Additives, Flavourings, Processing Aids and Materials in Contact with Food (AFC) stated, “Overall, the Panel concluded on the basis of all the evidence currently available including the last published ERF [European Ramazzini Foundation] study that there is no indication of any genotoxic or carcinogenic potential of aspartame and that there is no reason to revise the previously established ADI for aspartame of 40 mg/kg bw/day.” This statement further confirms EFSA’s 2006 statement regarding an earlier Ramazzini study, which alleged that aspartame consumption may cause cancer.
Although EFSA found many problems with the Ramazzini study, the panel stated that one of the reasons for the confounding conclusions by Ramazzini may be due, in part, to the fact that the rats already suffered from chronic respiratory disease. The Panel went on to note that there is no information as to whether the Ramazzini study was performed under “Good Laboratory Practices” and the study design is not reflective of currently accepted toxicological methodologies.
The allegations made by Ramazzini are at complete odds with the wealth of scientific literature demonstrating that aspartame is safe and does not cause cancer. A recent epidemiology study from the National Cancer Institute confirms previous study conclusions that there is no link between aspartame consumption and leukemias, lymphomas and brain tumors. The study evaluated over 500,000 men and women between the ages of 50 and 69 over a five-year period. A comprehensive review of more than 500 studies and recently published in Critical Reviews in Toxicology also found that aspartame is safe and not associated with cancer. The review was conducted by a panel of eight leading experts in the areas of toxicology, epidemiology, metabolism, pathology, biostatistics etc., and conclusively determined that aspartame is safe.
The U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) also supports the fact that aspartame is a safe low-calorie sweetener. According to the FDA, “Based on the large body of evidence we have reviewed, including several studies on carcinogenicity which showed no adverse effects and data on how aspartame is metabolized by humans, we have no reason to believe that aspartame would cause cancer. Thus, it remains FDA’s position that use [of aspartame] is safe."*
The most reasonable criticism one can make is that fruit juices are better for you than diet sodas sweetened with aspartame, so relying heavily on diet Coke or similar products for refreshment is ill-advisable.
Besides, if you leave a piece of meat in diet Coke overnight, it’ll be dissolved and the Coke will eat through the table, dripping on and burning up your carpet, and the resulting fumes will probably asphyxiate the entire neighborhood, so do not try this at home. :eek:
Actually, Reply is right. What are you so “confident” about? You’re confident about what you’ve tested (eg, cancer), but there is so much that you haven’t! Eg, maybe aspartame causes very low-level depression in 70% of people, but severe depression in noone. Something like that would be near-impossible to notice, because your studies do not test for very subtle mood changes, because they cannot.
P.S., actually “evolution” is likewise made up of some facts that are very well-tested but also some ideas that have not and cannot be tested. All things are like that. Keep it in mind, and know the limits of your knowledge!
The way I can see diet sodas leading to weight gain is if drinking a lot of them in one sitting (ie, a king-size drink) stretches out the stomach (shifting thresholds for fullness, etc.). I think this is actually a very valid concern.
My point wasn’t about the origin, just examples of drugs and additives that were once freely available and used which aren’t now, due to health concerns. As others have pointed out, it’s not an altogether impressive list, just what I could think of off the top of my head that answered the poster’s previous question. I don’t think that Aspartame, or any other additive, is dangerous by virtue of being unnatural, or conversely that natural substances necessarily aren’t. Clearly that would be stupid.
Hence my emphasis on the study being controversial, likely methodologically unsound and unsupported by the overwhelming majority of other papers in this area. Trying to paint me as a whack-job who thinks coke destroys everything it touches is arrant nonsense.
I prefer beer anyway, and that has numerous, proven medical problems associated with it.
Please keep the “Your body isn’t a thinking machine” pseudo-babble to yourself. How is that at all a scientific assessment of the situation? Have you done any research on this subject? A simple pubmed search returns, among many others, this study linking sweet taste receptors and artificial sweeteners with insulin secretion.
Actually, you linked to this study without any indication that you thought it “controversial” or “methodologically unsound”. In a later post you referred to an unnamed “handul of controversial studies” suggesting carcinogenicity of aspartame, comparing them to “meta-analyses” showing aspartame is safe. Only in responding to me have you conceded the methodological defects of the anti-aspartame studies.
It’s also inaccurate to characterize the body of research backing the safety of aspartame as “meta-analyses”. Many such studies have employed different methods of analysis and have come to similar conclusions.
That joke scenario about the destructive power of Coke was not directed at you. The real whack-jobs are those that try to link aspartame not only to cancer, but to MS and a huge range of chronic diseases, and speak darkly of a Big Pharma/Government/Donald Rumsfeld plot to poison us all.
Yes, how about thalidomide? You couldn’t have picked a worse example.
Thalidomide was never approved for use in the United States. FDA approval was denied, largely due to the efforts of an FDA scientist named Frances Kelsey, who didn’t think the safety studies were adequate. As a result, the U.S. was almost entirely spared the outbreak of birth defects that plagued countries like England and Germany (a few U.S. cases occurred when Americans were able to get ahold of the drug through means such as buying it when traveling abroad).
It’s surprising how few people know the real story behind thalidomide. I see it cited on alt med websites and boards as an example of government regulatory failure and why we should get rid of the FDA - but the case points in exactly the opposite direction.
When consumed in moderation beer is OK for you. Even Miller Beer.
The real gems, are the ones that blame the FDA for being deliberately slow in testing and approving medicine, but also want to be able to sue the drug companies if anything goes wrong.
I knew of the criticisms of the study, in more detail than the EFSA link you provided, before you apparently enlightened me. I didn’t fully expand on it at length, along with many other point that get made on this message board. Just that not all the evidence was in agreement and that some of it was controversial.
I understand the concept of a meta-analysis, and that funnily enough these require actual single studies to make up the data.
Thalidomide wasn’t thoroughly tested. That’s not my point. The point is that drugs and food additives have made it to the consumer, where mistakes have been made or full effects not known. As for the other example that I cited, of anti-depressants, these were reasonably tested, but some of their more serious side-effects were only more recently identified. The point still stands.
Even low and moderate alcohol consumption increases cancer risk, alongside all sorts of other medical factors (Allen et al. 2009). And I wouldn’t drink Miller beer unless it was a choice between that or my own urine, and even then I might waver.