Artificial sweetners?

[Desi's_lost]

Both aspartame, sucralose etc types and high fructose corn syrup? Opinions?

Personally i think both should be point blank banned but i have a harder time finding definitive fact on how they hurt you.

 

[alaskagrown]

I don't think they should be banned. Why would they? Sure, some say they're harmful if you eat a lot of it....but so is too much sugar. Should we ban sugar too? Should we ban beer? Should we ban coffee? How about too much salt? Who is the government to say what we can and can't put in our bodies?

If you don't want to risk the "potential side effects" that are associated with artificial sweeteners, then don't eat them!

 

[deafgal]

people with diabete need something.

 

[Desi's_lost]

Aspartame and sucralose have been linked to cancer and sure you can argue moderation but they are used so frequently that there is no such thing as moderation. everything marked as sugar free or low calorie has them in it.

also, sewage treatment plants arent fully equipped to filter them out so sucralose has been found in drinking water in Germany. Again, sort of throws the 'moderation' argument out the door.

HFCS, if nothing else, is made with corn. genetically modified corn which makes it even more questionable. the amount of corn used in America is baffling. Even soon farmed fish are fed corn. talk about unnatural. Until recently it was even in whole wheat breads as the third ingredient.

 

[deafgal]

we love our corns We even make Corn ethanol out of them. it is just easily to grow to serve a high population of people. either that or soy.

 

[alaskagrown]

Alcohol is linked to liver failure. So should the government ban that? Tanning can cause cancer. Should the government ban people from laying out on the beach? If you don't want to eat artificial sweeteners, DON'T eat foods marked sugar free or low calorie! Simple as that! Take some personal responsibility to not eat it if you don't to risk the side effects.

 

[Midnight_Fairy]

I dont let my kids have aspartame but I do have sweetener in my tea as I like it sweet but hate sugar x

 

[Sarahkka]

Alcohol is linked to liver failure. So should the government ban that? Tanning can cause cancer. Should the government ban people from laying out on the beach? If you don't want to eat artificial sweeteners, DON'T eat foods marked sugar free or low calorie! Simple as that! Take some personal responsibility to not eat it if you don't to risk the side effects.

I think Desi's_lost's point was that we have very little definitive science to establish a healthy/acceptable amount, so it is difficult to make that choice. And that there may be far more exposure sources (such as drinking water) than many of us are aware of. If that is the case, then I think it makes sense to involve regulation.
How else can you make an appropriate choice or define an acceptable risk for yourself if you don't have enough information?
People who drink or tan have a strong set of scientifically-based recommendations to help them make a choice. What they do with that information is up to them.

 

[deafgal]

the problem is, like you wrote, many americans ate corn syrup for years, if it was a problem, some of us would gotten cancer and such. it have been inconsistent as some Americans are extremely healthy and some aren't. I do think people with native american background need to be careful about eating high sugar diet as some, not all, are more prone to diabete.both of my dad's parents became diabete type 2 but my other grandma ate whatever she wanted, and brought all sort of american processed food, and never did developed it and she is very healthy in her 90's. She did tell me watercress did the trick . also, there are people who ate organic (even grown their own garden) and still ended up with issues.

 

[summer rain]

I personally avoid aspartame, saccharin and acesulfame K but am ok with sucralose and fructose, both are risky if you have too much of them but they are both used so seldom in the UK (most foods contain straight sugar not fructose or sucralose) that the risks are less. When I went to the US I put on 3lb in 5 days because of all the high fructose corn syrup in absolutely everything xx

 

[alaskagrown]

Alcohol is linked to liver failure. So should the government ban that? Tanning can cause cancer. Should the government ban people from laying out on the beach? If you don't want to eat artificial sweeteners, DON'T eat foods marked sugar free or low calorie! Simple as that! Take some personal responsibility to not eat it if you don't to risk the side effects.

I think Desi's_lost's point was that we have very little definitive science to establish a healthy/acceptable amount, so it is difficult to make that choice. And that there may be far more exposure sources (such as drinking water) than many of us are aware of. If that is the case, then I think it makes sense to involve regulation.
How else can you make an appropriate choice or define an acceptable risk for yourself if you don't have enough information?
People who drink or tan have a strong set of scientifically-based recommendations to help them make a choice. What they do with that information is up to them.

Moderation = 2-4 teaspoons of artificial sweetener per day for me, and any more than that makes me sick. Alcohol in moderation is completely variable by person, as is tanning. My friend who is 90 pounds can tolerate alcohol in her system much better than me. An African can probably tolerate far more tanning and sunlight than a Caucasian redhead. We are exposed to UV radiation in far more sources than a tanning bed - i.e., light fixtures and natural sunlight. Therefore, should UV light be moderated? There are no scientific studies that suggest how often it is okay to eat McDonald's - it is up to the consumer to use personal discretion.

It is common sense.

The artificial sweeteners in drinking water was a secluded case in Germany, and they are probably trying to figure out a solution. And what exactly was the trace level found? Certainly if it were anything near remotely dangerous, people with phenylketonuria would be dropping like canaries in a mine. There have been traces of arsenic found in apple juice - it's just that the ppm are so insignificant, it's equivalent to the amounts deemed acceptable in human drinking water.

Oh, and in a college chemistry class we did some research about the makeup of artificial sweeteners and it's link to human health concerns. You would need to eat an amount that is essentially physically impossible for any human to consume on a daily basis to experience any adverse effects.

 

[Kate&Lucas]

I use artificial sweetner. I've never really found anything to convince me of its 'danger' other than internet/tabloid scaremongering.

I once read an article that claimed showering everyday causes cancer. Now maybe that's true too but you pick your battles. I'm not going to go smelly on the chance I might live a bit longer.

 

[Sarahkka]

Alcohol is linked to liver failure. So should the government ban that? Tanning can cause cancer. Should the government ban people from laying out on the beach? If you don't want to eat artificial sweeteners, DON'T eat foods marked sugar free or low calorie! Simple as that! Take some personal responsibility to not eat it if you don't to risk the side effects.

I think Desi's_lost's point was that we have very little definitive science to establish a healthy/acceptable amount, so it is difficult to make that choice. And that there may be far more exposure sources (such as drinking water) than many of us are aware of. If that is the case, then I think it makes sense to involve regulation.
How else can you make an appropriate choice or define an acceptable risk for yourself if you don't have enough information?
People who drink or tan have a strong set of scientifically-based recommendations to help them make a choice. What they do with that information is up to them.

Moderation = 2-4 teaspoons of artificial sweetener per day for me, and any more than that makes me sick. Alcohol in moderation is completely variable by person, as is tanning. My friend who is 90 pounds can tolerate alcohol in her system much better than me. An African can probably tolerate far more tanning and sunlight than a Caucasian redhead. We are exposed to UV radiation in far more sources than a tanning bed - i.e., light fixtures and natural sunlight. Therefore, should UV light be moderated? There are no scientific studies that suggest how often it is okay to eat McDonald's - it is up to the consumer to use personal discretion.

It is common sense.

The artificial sweeteners in drinking water was a secluded case in Germany, and they are probably trying to figure out a solution. And what exactly was the trace level found? Certainly if it were anything near remotely dangerous, people with phenylketonuria would be dropping like canaries in a mine. There have been traces of arsenic found in apple juice - it's just that the ppm are so insignificant, it's equivalent to the amounts deemed acceptable in human drinking water.

Oh, and in a college chemistry class we did some research about the makeup of artificial sweeteners and it's link to human health concerns. You would need to eat an amount that is essentially physically impossible for any human to consume on a daily basis to experience any adverse effects.

I absolutely agree with your main point of personal responsibility and accountability when it comes to choosing what we put into/do to our bodies. I also agree that banning something can be a knee-jerk reaction when information and personal accountability exist to allow everyone to choose appropriately (whether they do or not is another debate). Having that choice made for me by a ban is a bit nanny state (depending on the substance and situation, of course).
I think we are saying the same thing on the examples of alcohol and tanning. What you said furthers my point - the fact that we have considerable study and information on these two topics means that the diversity of humankind (race, sex, size, what have you!) can make a choice for themselves about what is moderate for them.
Where I do stand corrected is on my suggestion that artificial sweeteners aren't that well studied! I did a quick google and found all sorts of articles discussing numerous studies. Lots of contradiction on some possible effects, but no concrete damning evidence yet. So in that sense, there are "safe" levels or recommendations.

And then, of course, there is personal taste - I can't stand the stuff, so I avoid it on that grounds!

 

[CMarie]

I think more honest research needs to be done on them before they should be banned. There's a lot of back and forth on if they are bad for you. I personally do not consume any artificial sweeteners and I use natural sweeteners instead such as honey and stevia

 

[Desi's_lost]

One of my main issues with research done, is that its done on a general group of products by products basis. Ie they say you need to drink x cans to exceed a healthy level a day. but what they are conveniently leaving out is the fact that you can drink a few bottles of flavored water, eat a new sugar free cookies, chew a few pieces of gum, possibly our water supplies, and in a million other places so how in the hell is the average consumer suppose to know exactly how much they are getting. its not like they list a 'daily value' on each product or even a mg amount.

Sure you can make point to avoid it but...that means you have a VERY limited amount of choices on what you can drink as far as bottled flavored waters. Also, what about people with diabetes? It makes it a very difficult choice for them.

Something i feel uncomfortable with also when it comes to testing is that when the studies are done on animals like mice and rats, they have a significantly shorter life span, i'm not sure we really have an understand of how that effects the possible out come on humans.

All around i feel that there are SO many things that are added into food that we dont even know if they are truly safe. i compare it to poking someone with a needle. sure, you do it once, there is little damage. But when every day you are being poked by hundreds of needles, its going to create a problem much sooner. (ie consuming msg, HFCS, ammonia hydroxide, sweetners, bht, bha, pesticides, arcenic, lead, carmel coloring, red 40, the list goes on) I suppose you could than argue "well target a different additive then!" but this one just seems like a no brainer to me. We have a sugar that we know wont hurt us. why not use that? or just not use sugar at all? most drinks containing sweetners are things like flavored water and teas. how about just adding in fruit juice?!

Switching over to HFCS, if you arent careful, that'll be in every single item you pick up from fruit snacks to soda/juice to bread! And almost always its the cheaper products. Not everyone has the money to pay to avoid it! How is that fair for the consumer?

Alcohol and tanning beds are not in the majority of the food supply, so to me, that is completely unrelated.

 

[Desi's_lost]

I think more honest research needs to be done on them before they should be banned. There's a lot of back and forth on if they are bad for you. I personally do not consume any artificial sweeteners and I use natural sweeteners instead such as honey and stevia

there was actually speculation that stevia was linked to problems with fertility but who knows.

 

[alaskagrown]

One of my main issues with research done, is that its done on a general group of products by products basis. Ie they say you need to drink x cans to exceed a healthy level a day. but what they are conveniently leaving out is the fact that you can drink a few bottles of flavored water, eat a new sugar free cookies, chew a few pieces of gum, possibly our water supplies, and in a million other places so how in the hell is the average consumer suppose to know exactly how much they are getting. its not like they list a 'daily value' on each product or even a mg amount.

Sure you can make point to avoid it but...that means you have a VERY limited amount of choices on what you can drink as far as bottled flavored waters. Also, what about people with diabetes? It makes it a very difficult choice for them.

Something i feel uncomfortable with also when it comes to testing is that when the studies are done on animals like mice and rats, they have a significantly shorter life span, i'm not sure we really have an understand of how that effects the possible out come on humans.

All around i feel that there are SO many things that are added into food that we dont even know if they are truly safe. i compare it to poking someone with a needle. sure, you do it once, there is little damage. But when every day you are being poked by hundreds of needles, its going to create a problem much sooner. (ie consuming msg, HFCS, ammonia hydroxide, sweetners, bht, bha, pesticides, arcenic, lead, carmel coloring, red 40, the list goes on) I suppose you could than argue "well target a different additive then!" but this one just seems like a no brainer to me. We have a sugar that we know wont hurt us. why not use that? or just not use sugar at all? most drinks containing sweetners are things like flavored water and teas. how about just adding in fruit juice?!

Switching over to HFCS, if you arent careful, that'll be in every single item you pick up from fruit snacks to soda/juice to bread! And almost always its the cheaper products. Not everyone has the money to pay to avoid it! How is that fair for the consumer?

Alcohol and tanning beds are not in the majority of the food supply, so to me, that is completely unrelated.

Artificial sweeteners aren't in the majority of food. They're mainly in diet foods, and people who consume things labeled "sugar free" or "diet." They are always labeled on the nutrition facts on the back. People who consume lots of these types of products know they consume lots of artificial sweetener! To me, they aren't hidden.

Oh, and sugar does not have a daily value as well.

If someone drinks a 24-pack of diet Coke a day and doesn't know they're consuming some type of artificial sweetener...and then one day ends up with cancer because of it....err...perhaps that's nature's way of phasing them out of the gene pool

Look, if you don't want flavored water with artificial sweetener in it, I'd suggest you try shopping at a health food store! As for the rest of us, let us buy our 99 cent artificially flavored water and live life as we choose!

 

[Desi's_lost]

Next time you go to your grocery store look at all the flavored waters/seltzer waters etc. I bet 90% have aspartame and that's just not fair. I can't stand plain water, soda is unhealthy, juice is expensive if you want one that has 100% juice or no HFCS, so what option do I really have left? =P aside from making my own I suppose but that's costly too as fruit isn't particularly cheap either. I pay about a dollar per apple I buy and that's your run of the mill, non organic apple!

Also, crystal light and the like, they don't make similar products without aspartame. Aside from like one I've seen that was 5 bucks! I don't have that kind of money. :/ so it's not as if I'm trying to aim for sugar free drinks, it's just that they dominate the category of teas/ everything besides juice and soda.

 

[Desi's_lost]

Btw again, why should people with lower incomes be doomed to choose unhealthy foods? That's absurd!

 

[deafgal]

I would just add lemon to my water. Is flavored water even healthy? (with or without sweetner)