Petition to ban Aspartame & Sucralose

[pac8x8]

*Link to say No to Aspartame and Sucralose.

[lee__d]

sweet n low is good tho

[nano.ix]

my vote has been added ...


... to 1-star this thread
any followers?

[SwiftyX]

Let people make thier own choices.

[Opies]

There is not a single study showing splenda to be dangerous in any reasonable doses, nor even in unreasonable doses.

[pac8x8]

Originally Posted by Opies

There is not a single study showing splenda to be dangerous in any reasonable doses, nor even in unreasonable doses.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum
1: J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2008;71(21):1415-29.Click here to read Links
Splenda alters gut microflora and increases intestinal p-glycoprotein and cytochrome p-450 in male rats.
Abou-Donia MB, El-Masry EM, Abdel-Rahman AA, McLendon RE, Schiffman SS.

Department of Pharmacology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina 27708, USA. donia@duke.edu

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.

[RapidFiyah]

Originally Posted by Opies

There is not a single study showing splenda to be dangerous in any reasonable doses, nor even in unreasonable doses.

Same goes with Aspartame, large unreasonable dowses have been given to people over a long period of time and it's still not dangerous.

[pac8x8]

Originally Posted by RapidFiyah

Same goes with Aspartame, large unreasonable dowses have been given to people over a long period of time and it's still not dangerous.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum
1: Int J Occup Environ Health. 2007 Oct-Dec;13(4):446-8.Links
Aspartame bioassay findings portend human cancer hazards.
Huff J, LaDou J.

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, NC 27514, USA. huff1@niehs.nih.gov

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) should reevaluate its position on aspartame as being safe under all conditions. Animal bioassay results predict human cancer risks, and a recent animal study confirms that there is a potential aspartame risk to humans. Aspartame is produced and packaged in China for domestic use and global distribution. Japan, France, and the United States are also major producers. No study of long-term adverse occupational health effects on aspartame workers have been conducted. The FDA should consider sponsoring a prospective epidemiologic study of aspartame workers.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum
1: Environ Health Perspect. 2007 Sep;115(9):1293-7.Click here to read Links

Comment in:
Environ Health Perspect. 2008 Jun;116(6):A239-40; author reply A240.

Life-span exposure to low doses of aspartame beginning during prenatal life increases cancer effects in rats.
Soffritti M, Belpoggi F, Tibaldi E, Esposti DD, Lauriola M.

Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center, European Ramazzini Foundation of Oncology and Environmental Sciences, Bologna, Italy. crcfr@ramazzini.it

BACKGROUND: In a previous study conducted at the Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center of the European Ramazzini Foundation (CMCRC/ERF), we demonstrated for the first time that aspartame (APM) is a multipotent carcinogenic agent when various doses are administered with feed to Sprague-Dawley rats from 8 weeks of age throughout the life span. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this second study is to better quantify the carcinogenic risk of APM, beginning treatment during fetal life. METHODS: We studied groups of 70-95 male and female Sprague-Dawley rats administered APM (2,000, 400, or 0 ppm) with feed from the 12th day of fetal life until natural death. RESULTS: Our results show a) a significant dose-related increase of malignant tumor-bearing animals in males (p < 0.01), particularly in the group treated with 2,000 ppm APM (p < 0.01); b) a significant increase in incidence of lymphomas/leukemias in males treated with 2,000 ppm (p < 0.05) and a significant dose-related increase in incidence of lymphomas/leukemias in females (p < 0.01), particularly in the 2,000-ppm group (p < 0.01); and c) a significant dose-related increase in incidence of mammary cancer in females (p < 0.05), particularly in the 2,000-ppm group (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this carcinogenicity bioassay confirm and reinforce the first experimental demonstration of APM's multipotential carcinogenicity at a dose level close to the acceptable daily intake for humans. Furthermore, the study demonstrates that when life-span exposure to APM begins during fetal life, its carcinogenic effects are increased.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum
1: In Vivo. 2007 Jan-Feb;21(1):89-92.Links

Erratum in:
In Vivo. 2007 Nov-Dec;21(6):1172.

The effect of aspartame administration on oncogene and suppressor gene expressions.
Gombos K, Varjas T, Ors?s Z, Poly?k E, Peredi J, Varga Z, Nowrasteh G, Tettinger A, Mucsi G, Ember I.

Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Public Health University of P?cs, P?cs, Hungary. katalin_gombos@yahoo.com

BACKGROUND: Aspartame (L-phenylalanine N-L-alpha-aspartyl-1-methyl ester) is an artificial sweetener with widespread applications. Previously published results have shown that among rats receiving aspartame a significant increase of lymphoreticular neoplasms, brain tumours and transitional cell tumours occurred. The aim of our short-term experiment was to investigate the biological effect of aspartame consumption by determining the expressions of key oncogenes and a tumour suppressor gene. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After one week per os administration of various doses of aspartame to CBA/CA female mice, p53, c-myc, Ha-ras gene expression alterations were determined in individual organs. RESULTS: The results showed an increase in gene expressions concerning all the investigated genes especially in organs with a high proliferation rate: lymphoreticular organs, bone-marrow and kidney. CONCLUSION: Aspartame has a biological effect even at the recommended daily maximum dose.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum
1: BMJ. 2005 Feb 5;330(7486):309-10; author reply 310.Click here to read Click here to read Links

Comment on:
BMJ. 2004 Oct 2;329(7469):755-6.

Aspartame and its effects on health: independently funded studies have found potential for adverse effects.
Briffa J.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum
1: Tex Heart Inst J. 2004;31(1):105; author reply 105-6.Click here to read Links

Comment on:
Tex Heart Inst J. 2003;30(4):314-5.

Aspartame disease: a possible cause for concomitant Graves' disease and pulmonary hypertension.
Roberts HJ.

[Opies]

Originally Posted by pac8x8

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum
1: J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2008;71(21):1415-29.Click here to read Links
Splenda alters gut microflora and increases intestinal p-glycoprotein and cytochrome p-450 in male rats.
Abou-Donia MB, El-Masry EM, Abdel-Rahman AA, McLendon RE, Schiffman SS.

Department of Pharmacology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina 27708, USA. donia@duke.edu

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.

This is a study on rats, not humans, and pure sucralose was not used. For all you know, those results could have been caused by the very large amount of maltodextrin those rats took in.

Pick a better study next time

[nano.ix]

Originally Posted by pac8x8

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum
1: J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2008;71(21):1415-29.Click here to read Links
Splenda alters gut microflora and increases intestinal p-glycoprotein and cytochrome p-450 in male rats.
Abou-Donia MB, El-Masry EM, Abdel-Rahman AA, McLendon RE, Schiffman SS.

Department of Pharmacology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina 27708, USA. donia@duke.edu

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.

for a 200 lb person (89.2kg)


100mg/kg = 8.9g
300mg/kg = 26.8g
500mg/kg = 44.6g
1000mg/kg = 89g

... how much do you think an average person consumes in a day?
again ... this is the problem with studies. It's the people, not the article.

[hooked4life]

Originally Posted by swiftyx

let people make thier own choices.

qftt.

[SwiftyX]

Who cares you can find studies that speak for or against anything.

ChemIDplus. National Library of Medicine (Specialized Information Services)

2-14. Food Chem Toxicol. 2000;38 Suppl 2:S1-129

Lu FC. "Acceptable daily intake: inception, evolution, and application." Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 1988 Mar;8(1):45-60.

Xili L, et al. "Chronic oral toxicity and carcinogenicity study of stevioside in rats." Food Chem Toxicol. 1992 Nov;30(11):957-65.

Suttajit M, et al. "Mutagenicity and human chromosomal effect of stevioside, a sweetener from Stevia rebaudiana Bertoni." Environ Health Perspect. 1993 Oct;101 Suppl 3:53-6.

Pezzuto JM, et al. "Metabolically activated steviol, the aglycone of stevioside, is mutagenic." Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1985 Apr;82(8):2478-82.

Mauri P, et al. "Analysis of Stevia glycosides by capillary electrophoresis." Electrophoresis. 1996 Feb;17(2):367-71.

Melis MS, Sainati AR. "Participation of prostaglandins in the effect of stevioside on rat renal function and arterial pressure." Braz J Med Biol Res. 1991;24(12):1269-76.

Toskulkao C, et al. "The low calorie natural sweetener stevioside: nephrotoxicity and its relationship to urinary enzyme excretion in the rat." Phytother Res 1994 (8):281-286.

Mazzei Planas G, Kuc J. "Contraceptive properties of Stevia rebaudiana." Science. 1968 Nov 29;162(857):1007.

Shiotsu S. "Fertility study of Stevia decoction in rats." Tech. J. Food Chem. Chemicals 1996 4:108 ? 113.

Uehara OA, et al. "Stevioside-androgen interactions." 7th Symposium Braz. Med. Plants, Manaus 1982 1:74.

Melis MS. "Effects of chronic administration of Stevia rebaudiana on fertility in rats." J Ethnopharmacol. 1999 Nov 1;67(2):157-61.

Yamada A, et al. "Chronic toxicity of dietary Stevia Extracts." J. Food Hyg. Soc. Jpn 1985 26:169 ? 183.

The EDI on aspertame and suralose are so high no one could even reach the amount you would need to be harmful. The EDI on Stevia is lower than both as well.

[RapidFiyah]

OP, do a quick search on PubMed and you'll find a countless amount of studies (which actually use Humans, not Rats) stating the safety of Aspartame, even in very large amounts over a long period of time.

[Daniepwils]

There are worse things than sweetners that the FDA knows about that is going in our foods. Like how all the ground beef in this country is soaked in ammonia...

Just like everything in life, moderation is key (except sex)

[pac8x8]

Originally Posted by RapidFiyah

OP, do a quick search on PubMed and you'll find a countless amount of studies (which actually use Humans, not Rats) stating the safety of Aspartame, even in very large amounts over a long period of time.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/

yeah ok. Many of the studies that showed its adverse reactions were removed once the gov took over pubmed. So you going to believe Donald Rumsfeld who got it passed through the FDA?

Look I didn't post this to create a debate, I thought in the nutrition section, people would care but obviously I was mistaken. Will delete later...

[Opies]

Originally Posted by Daniepwils

moderation is key (except sex)

actually, I beg to differ.

[Opies]

Originally Posted by pac8x8

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/

yeah ok. Many of the studies that showed its adverse reactions were removed once the gov took over pubmed. So you going to believe Donald Rumsfeld who got it passed through the FDA?

Look I didn't post this to create a debate, I thought in the nutrition section, people would care but obviously I was mistaken. Will delete later...

People do care. Clearly several people jumped in here because they care that you are wrong.

P.S. It's difficult to maintain credibility when right after your ideas are smacked down you jump straight to government conspiracy.

[RapidFiyah]

Originally Posted by Daniepwils

There are worse things than sweetners that the FDA knows about that is going in our foods. Like how all the ground beef in this country is soaked in ammonia...

Just like everything in life, moderation is key (except sex)

Yeah, like Sodium Nitrite (or any other nitrite - even naturally occuring - added to meat), why they still allow this even with all the evidence showing the risks I do not know.

[RapidFiyah]

Originally Posted by pac8x8

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/

yeah ok. Many of the studies that showed its adverse reactions were removed once the gov took over pubmed. So you going to believe Donald Rumsfeld who got it passed through the FDA?

Look I didn't post this to create a debate, I thought in the nutrition section, people would care but obviously I was mistaken. Will delete later...

You got evidence of that buddy?

[pac8x8]

Originally Posted by Opies

People do care. Clearly several people jumped in here because they care that you are wrong.

P.S. It's difficult to maintain credibility when right after your ideas are smacked down you jump straight to government conspiracy.

then keep bleaching your innards! & Let those that care about the general health of individuals out there sign this petition.

[Opies]

Originally Posted by pac8x8

then keep bleaching your innards! & Let those that care about the general health of individuals out there sign this petition.

i will keep.... bleaching my innards? I'm guessing you are saying that because spleda is chloronated sugar, like chlorine bleach? Slightly different BTW, take a chemistry class. I like splenda because it tastes great, it's non-reactive, it doesn't break down in the body, and it's non-osmotic. It's pretty much a miracle chemical when it comes to food additives. You are not only eating much worse things every day, but breathing them in too, and rubbing them on your skin from lotions (Sunscreen is loaded with photo-carcinogens, btw (hey lets start a petition against sun screen))

[pac8x8]

Originally Posted by RapidFiyah

You got evidence of that buddy?

From 1977 to 1985 Rumsfeld served as Chief Executive Officer, President, and then Chairman of G. D. Searle & Company, a worldwide pharmaceutical company based in Skokie, Illinois. During his tenure at Searle, Rumsfeld led the company's financial turnaround, thereby earning awards as the Outstanding Chief Executive Officer in the Pharmaceutical Industry from the Wall Street Transcript (1980) and Financial World (1981). In 1985, Searle was sold to Monsanto Company. Rumsfeld is believed to have earned around $12 million from this sale.[26]

Makers of Nutrasweet (Aspartame) which was banned for 16 years prior to "company's financial turnaround."

[tabasco.sauce]

my poo has a high pH?

[RapidFiyah]

Originally Posted by pac8x8

From 1977 to 1985 Rumsfeld served as Chief Executive Officer, President, and then Chairman of G. D. Searle & Company, a worldwide pharmaceutical company based in Skokie, Illinois. During his tenure at Searle, Rumsfeld led the company's financial turnaround, thereby earning awards as the Outstanding Chief Executive Officer in the Pharmaceutical Industry from the Wall Street Transcript (1980) and Financial World (1981). In 1985, Searle was sold to Monsanto Company. Rumsfeld is believed to have earned around $12 million from this sale.[26]

Makers of Nutrasweet (Aspartame) which was banned for 16 years prior to "company's financial turnaround."

I'm talking about evidence of Aspartame being dangerous being pulled from PubMed once the government took it over, you just completely pulled that out of your ass didn't you?

[pac8x8]

Originally Posted by Opies

i will keep.... bleaching my innards? I'm guessing you are saying that because spleda is chloronated sugar, like chlorine bleach? Slightly different BTW, take a chemistry class. I like splenda because it tastes great, it's non-reactive, it doesn't break down in the body, and it's non-osmotic. It's pretty much a miracle chemical when it comes to food additives. You are not only eating much worse things every day, but breathing them in too, and rubbing them on your skin from lotions (Sunscreen is loaded with photo-carcinogens, btw (hey lets start a petition against sun screen))

uh I don't use sunscreen because I know of its harmful effects...but obviously you like chemistry that much, good for you. That destruction of friendly bacteria only happens in rats then in your analysis.

[Opies]

Originally Posted by pac8x8

uh I don't use sunscreen because I know of it's harmful effects...but obviously you like chemistry that much, good for you. That destruction of friendly bacteria only happens in rats then in your analysis.

actually, it only happens in rats fed high doses of sucralose, glucose, and maltodextrin.

I agree it happens in that situation, the study clearly proved that. Unfortunately the study didn't prove the culling of intestinal flora was caused by the sucralose(poor controls on experiment), nor did they prove these results happen in humans, nor did they prove these results in rats are even applicable to humans. And thus, you fail to prove any point whatsoever

[pac8x8]

Originally Posted by RapidFiyah

I'm talking about evidence of Aspartame being dangerous being pulled from PubMed once the government took it over, you just completely pulled that out of your ass didn't you?

You can see the author and the heading, but the full study is no longer there - I listed two examples to give you an idea.

edit: there are TONS! if you look! that have been removed and are ghost studies.

[pac8x8]

Originally Posted by Opies

actually, it only happens in rats fed high doses of sucralose, glucose, and maltodextrin.

I agree it happens in that situation, the study clearly proved that. Unfortunately the study didn't prove the culling of intestinal flora was caused by the sucralose(poor controls on experiment), nor did they prove these results happen in humans, nor did they prove these results in rats are even applicable to humans. And thus, you fail to prove any point whatsoever

So if I had a similar occurrence where I was fed supps w/ sucralose (like many bbers use), and I started feeling sickly... it was the glucose and maltodextrin? Many of these supps didn't have them. I am much much healthier and not bloated after I removed things with sucralose. I'm done with artificial ingredients period!

..and the rats were fed within the considered safe amounts, well below.

[pac8x8]

Originally Posted by tabasco.sauce

my poo has a high pH?

cancers thrive in high pH, so you open yourself up to increase risk of colon and intestinal cancers -which so happens to be sky high these days.

[bodydropcris]

sorry buddy, i gotta get that fix every morning in my oatmeal, i'd rather **** white than eat plain oats or rot my teeth with sugar....