Saccharin’s the pink stuff, right? And aspartame’s the stuff that comes in blue packets? Just want to know what we’re talking about. Not that I’d use either one.
First thing: a great deal of the time, when one study finds some result (and for sucralose - the yellow stuff - which is what I use, it’s just one study), very often further studies fail to confirm the initial result. I’ll wait until there is confirmation before even worrying about it.
Second thing, as wolfpup already pointed out, going back to using actual sugar or corn syrup as one’s sweeteners opens up the likelihood of obesity and the associated health risks. Whatever sucralose might be doing to my DNA, it probably isn’t going to mess up my body as much or as fast as putting on the pounds would.
Speaking of the Zero beverages, as wolfpup did, I really like the A&W Root Beer Zero. And my wife, who’d never found an artificially sweetened beverage to her liking before, really likes Coke Zero. (I just don’t like colas very much, so I’ve got no opinion there.)
People have been telling us for years that artificial sweeteners are bad for us. And that soda sweetened with artificial sweeteners is “just as bad” or “worse” than soda sweetened with sugar.
I’ve yet to die from diet soda. But I can quantifiably demonstrate what a sugared soda does to my blood glucose levels.
I don’t deny that these sweetners are bad for one’s health. I’m sure it’s absolutely safer to avoid them than to consume them in high quantities. But, for me, the same goes for sugar itself. I’ll continue to consume both in moderation, and see which kills me first.
My father, who was a very good doctor, used to say that if you have to argue about statistical significance, there isn’t any biological significance. Enough people have been consuming enough artificial sweeteners for long enough that if there were major problems, they would be obious.
I happen to think that they are unhealthy, mostly because they train you to expect food to be sweet, (and arguably train your metabolism as well as your brain, although the evidence for that is not conclusive, and see above about biological significance.) But that’s really not an issue for older people who already consume them – what’s done is done. I didn’t give them to my kids, and tried to give my children a diet where “sweet” was a sometimes treat, and not an everyday expectation. But again, that’s not really an issue for adults, who have mostly already formed their expectations.
Anyway, I don’t consume artificial sweeteners, both because I think they are unhealthy and because I think they taste gross. And also because I try to mostly pick foods where I can tell what plant or animal died to give me this meal. But I also don’t think that people who are in the habit of consuming a lot of diet soda should suddenly stop based on anything that’s come up recently. We’d know.
This is a good point: “Statistically significant” doesn’t necessarily mean that the effect is large. With a large enough sample size, even a very small effect could be statistically significant, and it also matters what the effect is: A 10% chance of dying from something is a lot different from a 10% chance of increased acne.
Of course, this also goes the other way: If a study is small enough, then a result might not be statistically significant, but still be actually very bad. The catch there is that we just won’t know that it’s bad.
For a new drug or something, sure. But millions of people have been eating all the common artificial sweeteners for years. Like, maybe be cautious of brand new artificial sweeteners. Or brand new anything in your food.
I also remember the saccharine scare of the late 70’s, which made my mom give up her beloved Fresca, so the worries over aspartame and sucralose have a familiar ring to them. My main issue with artificial sweeteners now is that everything that doesn’t have tons of sugar seems to now include at least a little if some other sweetener, and I can always taste it. Like @puzzlegal, I’d just like to see companies quit training the American palate to need everything over-sweetened (and also oversalted, but that’s a different battle).
The EPA considered numerous studies on glyphosate safety, as have other agencies looking into the matter. Consider this report to New Zealand’s Environmental Protection Authority, which referenced case-control studies and other research conducted in multiple countries, before concluding that there’s a lack of evidence for glyphosate causing cancer.
It’s ironic that Charles Benbrook (whose paper you cite) is playing the shill gambit with regard to the EPA, given his own history as the organic industry’s go-to source.
“Benbrook…served as chief scientist at the Organic Center, an organic industry funded research organization operating under the management of the Organic Trade Association from 2004 until 2012…
Between 2012 and 2015, Benbrook was an adjunct research professor at Washington State University on contract with the Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources…he conducted several studies funded entirely by the organic food industry…”
“Benbrook’s contract with Washington State was terminated after reports he failed to disclose…industry funded conflicts of interest…
Benbrook has served as an expert witness in more than a dozen lawsuits involving GMOs and pesticides, and since 2014 he has been a paid litigation consulted for pesticide litigators on class action cases involving glyphosate.”
“In 2018 Benbrook launched the Heartland Research Study and Heartland Health Research Alliance, LTD with reported …financial assistance from glyphosate litigator Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and organic grocery magnate Mark Squire.”
Nope, no conflicts of interest there.
Apologies for the further diversion from discussion of aspartame, but glyphosate’s case demonstrates that when there are substantial financial interests on various sides, it’s best to look closely at the science (without cherry-picking examples favorable to one’s cause) and not so much to shill gambiteers.
I think that was cyclamates plus saccharin, or cyclamates alone. Saccharin alone was never implicated.
As for the rest, many excellent answers here. One study, someone decides long-term use may be a problem, etc. etc. I suspect Big Sugar (and his big nasty brother Bit HFCS) has a long arm and a lot of money to spend on dubious studies.
It’s worth a full read. The IARC’s standards are pretty bad if you are trying to make personal decisions. That’s especially true when we get down to the low bar of being listed as possibly carcinogenic. It’s a good category for the relevant scientists and funding agencies to use when considering what research to pursue next.
Also on the IARC’s list of possibly carcinogenic substances/exposures:
Aloe vera, whole leaf extract
Gingko bilboa extract
Pickled vegetables (traditional Asian)
Very hot beverages at above 65 °C/149F (drinking); Previously they listed coffee before dropping it lower and adding this
Radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (like your cell phone or the electrical wiring in your home when current is flowing produce)
They also don’t address issues like dosing/exposure levels, how much risk is introduced, or the severity of the cancer(s) cause in their categories. That’s a lot of excluded data I need to make informed risk to reward decisions rather than wild ass guesses based on fear because someone said the word cancer.
Agreed that this has become a digression, and I propose a truce. You get a Brownie point for pointing out that Charles Benbrook has a history that I was not aware of that suggests a possible bias. I, OTOH, believe I should get a Brownie point because despite your claim that “it’s best to look closely at the science”, your main argument against Benbrook isn’t based on science but on smearing the source using the old tactic of guilt by association. Nowhere have you disproved any of the claims that I quoted, or any others in the paper.
OK, enough. There’s a lot of bullshit masquerading as “science”. Most of us who have a decent education can tell the difference. You can, I can, most of the posters here can. We sometimes disagree on the nuances. Let’s move on.
I once pissed off a girlfriend (probably to the point that she dumped me), when she came back from some seminar, and was all fired up by what she had heard. One speaker was discussing healthy eating, and she excitedly asked me “Do you know what the most dangerous thing that people eat is?
I thought for a second and said “Umm… salt?”
She said “No, its Nutrasweet!”
Without skipping a beat, I said, “On, that’s ridiculous.”
She glared at me and said “How can you say that?”
I replied - “Because, we a doing a huge science experiment every day. Every single day, millions of people are consuming Nutrasweet. If it was that bad for you, it would be obvious - people would be dropping like flies.”
She didn’t like that answer…
No. That’s not what gives me pause. I don’t consume them because they all taste horrible. But yes, assuming I liked the taste, those things would give me pause.
Statistical vs clinical significance is a very valid point. As is the concept of lesser harms than having that much sweetness with sugar each day.
Personally of no impact.
I try to limit added sweeteners as a matter of course, be it added sugar, HFCS, or artificial non-nutritive sweetener crap, but when I do indulge in extra sweetness it is going to worth it, a chewy brownie, a great piece of key lime pie, a warm gooey chocolate chip cookie…
We have been trained to hit our sweet centers hard and often from childhood on. I actually enjoy items sweeter than real fruit all the more because they are an infrequent thing. A little goes a long way if you don’t shoot up, I mean, have lots, every day.
Mind you they’re around the house always. My wife is a sweets freak and is constantly bringing a selection of pie slices, fancy donuts, and junkier crap.
