Did you know that the Center For Science in the Public Interest STILL
considers saccharin "UNSAFE" ?
Please see:
http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.369/news_detail.asp
Why do people still rely on them for credible health information?
Jeff
May 24, 2004
CSPI Not Sweet on Sweeteners
By Jeff Stier, Esq.
The Center for Science in the Public Interest’s flagship publication,
Nutrition Action Health Letter is a prime fundraising tool for the
Food Police. On its face, it looks like a well-written and visually
appealing newsletter with health tips and recipes. But to the trained
eye, it’s not so pretty, at least from a scientific perspective.
Let’s break down just a few things from their May 2004 feature "Sweet
Nothings: Not All Sweeteners Are Equal." (Cute title. If only they
did such a "Splenda-d" job with their science.)
In their review of artificial sweeteners, they describe sugar alcohols
and aspartame as generally safe, which is good. And while they call
Acesulfame "inadequately tested," it is no surprise, since we know
CSPI subscribes to the precautionary principle .
But it was striking that they listed saccharin as "unsafe"!
After all, in 2000, the National Institutes of Health removed
saccharin from its "Report on Carcinogens." (See:
http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/may2000/niehs-15.htm .)
By now, we all should know that while long-term, high-dose experiments
on rats found that saccharin may cause bladder cancer in
second-generation male rats, the same does not apply to humans.
Surely, if saccharin made people sick, we’d know it from tracking
diabetics, a class of people who use more saccharin than the general
population. Yet diabetics have shown _no_ increased rate of bladder
cancer or any other types of cancer. Sachharin is safe.
So how does CSPI get to "unsafe"? Mainly through inflammatory
rhetoric. For instance, they write:
In 1997, the FDA tried to ban saccharin because animal studies showed
that it caused cancer of the bladder, uterus, ovaries, skin, and other
organs. Bowing to pressure from the diet-food industry and dieters,
Congress intervened to keep saccharin on the market, though with a
warning label. (At the time, saccharin was the only high-potency
sweetener.)
Well, cyclamates could have been an alternative, but the activists
had already pressured the FDA into banning them.
So, according to CSPI, Congress bowed to pressure from industry (and
dieters!) Never, according to CSPI, has a decision counter to CSPI
doctrine been made on its merits. Either you agree with CSPI or you
are bowing to pressure, or worse yet, you are "a paid liar for
industry."
They continue:
In the late 1990s the Calorie Control Council — which represents the
low-calorie food and beverage industry — convinced the FDA and the
National Institutes of Health that the main health concern about
saccharin was bladder cancer in male rats, but that people didn’t
develop bladder cancer through the same mechanism as the rats.
Again, it was the industry, according to CSPI, which persuaded the
apparently malleable scientists at both the Food and Drug
Administration and National Institutes of Health that humans don’t get
bladder cancer the same way rats do. Those FDA and NIH scientists
will fall for anything, suggests CSPI.
The untrained reader of CSPI’s newsletter is left to think that
saccharin is dangerous. Yet nothing could be further from the truth.
But until we all start challenging CSPI, they’ll continue to get away
with it.
Isn’t it time we held them accountable?
For more "Isn’t it time we held them accountable?" articles, please
see: http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.368/news_detail.asp
For more on Saccharin, please see ACSH’s classic, Facts Versus Fears
:http://www.acsh.org/publications/pubID.154/pub_detail.asp
And if you want to know a bit more about "carcinogens," please see our
Holiday Dinner Menu:
http://www.acsh.org/publications/pubID.103/pub_detail.asp
jeff stier wrote:
> Did you know that the Center For Science in the Public Interest STILL
> considers saccharin "UNSAFE" ?
> Please see:
> http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.369/news_detail.asp
> Why do people still rely on them for credible health information?
> Jeff
<snip>
I have no idea why the media keeps repeating their statements. I’ve
been known to call the organization the Center for No Science for the
Public Disservice (or other variations that come to mind).
Cindy Wells
(of course the same failures in science education that lead to people
signing the ban DHMO petitions are what the so-called CSPI use to
get support of their various "change the industry" campaigns.)
Saccharin has been a GRAS (generally regarded as safe) substance since the time
of Teddy Roosevelt. No recognized scientific or regulatory organization has
ever disagreed.
Nan, Type 2
In article <e5505d78.0405241816.797df…@posting.google.com>,
st…@acsh.org (jeff stier) wrote:
> Did you know that the Center For Science in the Public Interest STILL
> considers saccharin "UNSAFE"
I long ago took to referring to these kooks by the much more accurate
and honest name, "The Center for Junk Science of No Possible Interest".
I guess we can abbreviate that as CjSonPI.
–
I hate spam, but that isn’t really part of my email
address. Remove the string "HatesSpam" from this email
address before you use it: BobHatesS…@Blaylock.to
Ever wonder what it’d be like to be a blood-sucking parasite?
http://tinyurl.com/7wxk
In article <e5505d78.0405241816.797df…@posting.google.com>,
jeff stier <st…@acsh.org> wrote:
>Did you know that the Center For Science in the Public Interest STILL
>considers saccharin "UNSAFE" ?
…………………..
>But it was striking that they listed saccharin as "unsafe"!
>After all, in 2000, the National Institutes of Health removed
>saccharin from its "Report on Carcinogens." (See:
>http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/may2000/niehs-15.htm .)
>By now, we all should know that while long-term, high-dose experiments
>on rats found that saccharin may cause bladder cancer in
>second-generation male rats, the same does not apply to humans.
>Surely, if saccharin made people sick, we’d know it from tracking
>diabetics, a class of people who use more saccharin than the general
>population. Yet diabetics have shown _no_ increased rate of bladder
>cancer or any other types of cancer. Sachharin is safe.
I have read the raw data on bladder cancer in Canadian
rats. These rats had all their drinking water loaded
with 250 times the concentration of saccharin in diet
sodas. Saccharin is not metabolized, and is excreted
through the bladder. Furthermore, those rats were
selected to be cancer-prone.
There was also a computation made on the cancer danger
to people assuming that there was no threshhold effect,
and that humans had a comparable risk to those rats.
The effect of drinking two cans of diet soda daily so
sweetened was estimated at 18 minutes. I have also
seen the data on humans, and if there is any effect of
saccharin over sugar, it is too small to be "statistically
significant", and saccharin seemed somewhat better.
>So how does CSPI get to "unsafe"? Mainly through inflammatory
>rhetoric. For instance, they write:
>In 1997, the FDA tried to ban saccharin because animal studies showed
>that it caused cancer of the bladder, uterus, ovaries, skin, and other
>organs. Bowing to pressure from the diet-food industry and dieters,
>Congress intervened to keep saccharin on the market, though with a
>warning label. (At the time, saccharin was the only high-potency
>sweetener.)
The FDA HAD to take that action. There is the Delaney
clause which states that any additive (note: this only
applies to additives) which has been shown to cause
cancer in humans or animals (and this means at any
dosage whatever) must be banned. Peanut butter, which
is likely to have some aflatoxin, which is cancerous,
has been estimated to be 10 times as dangerous as the
above estimate for saccharin, even with its smaller use.
But aflatoxin is a contaminant, which cannot be totally
removed, and so peanut butter is permitted. According
to Bruce Ames, a rather well known authority in this
area, bruised produce is quite carcinogenic, and more
than 90% of cancers come from "natural" causes.
I have deleted the rest. I have read the sources, and
I know whereof I speak. I use saccharin.
—
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hru…@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
In article <40B2B2BC.3C3D1…@ckt.net>,
Cindy Wells <lcwells8…@netscape.net> wrote:
>jeff stier wrote:
>> Did you know that the Center For Science in the Public Interest STILL
>> considers saccharin "UNSAFE" ?
>> Please see:
>> http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.369/news_detail.asp
>> Why do people still rely on them for credible health information?
>> Jeff
<snip>
>I have no idea why the media keeps repeating their statements. I’ve
>been known to call the organization the Center for No Science for the
>Public Disservice (or other variations that come to mind).
Have you heard of the science fair project which got most
people to sign petitions to require strict regulation of
dihydrogen monoxide, pointing out its dangers?
—
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hru…@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Herman Rubin wrote:
<snip>
> Have you heard of the science fair project which got most
> people to sign petitions to require strict regulation of
> dihydrogen monoxide, pointing out its dangers?
Unfortunately yes. However, those petitions have led a few science
teachers to specifically use that information to prove to their students
why they need to pay attention in class.
Cindy Wells
(whose own mother uses the lesson in tutoring as well – and mom’s
tutoring sessions on the topic usually are done with the child’s
parent(s) either in the room or given the same lesson that day.)
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> —
> This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
> are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
> Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
> hru…@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
On 25 May 2004 06:18:42 GMT, nanekl…@aol.com (Nan Eklund) wrote:
>Saccharin has been a GRAS (generally regarded as safe) substance since the time
>of Teddy Roosevelt. No recognized scientific or regulatory organization has
>ever disagreed.
Baloney.
The FDA banned it in the early 1970′s, It is a suspect carcinogen,
however I’d emphasize the suspected part. The evidence upon which it
was banned was not very convincing, however under the Delaney
ammendment, the FDA had little choice in the matter. The statistical
significance of the findings that lead the banning was better than
chance, but not much better, usually it needs to be at least 20 times
better to be considered valid.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>Nan, Type 2
"Herman Rubin" <hru…@odds.stat.purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:c90di7$1svm@odds.stat.purdue.edu…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> In article <40B2B2BC.3C3D1…@ckt.net>,
> Cindy Wells <lcwells8…@netscape.net> wrote:
> >jeff stier wrote:
> >> Did you know that the Center For Science in the Public Interest STILL
> >> considers saccharin "UNSAFE" ?
> >> Please see:
> >> http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.369/news_detail.asp
> >> Why do people still rely on them for credible health information?
> >> Jeff
> <snip>
> >I have no idea why the media keeps repeating their statements. I’ve
> >been known to call the organization the Center for No Science for the
> >Public Disservice (or other variations that come to mind).
> Have you heard of the science fair project which got most
> people to sign petitions to require strict regulation of
> dihydrogen monoxide, pointing out its dangers?
When I was younger; much younger; I used to find it really dangerous when
combined with soap; Just ask my Mother!
–
George Eberhardt
(732)224-8988
In article <p0b8b0tunec0v6r6p0tn941pj0kajal…@4ax.com>,
matt weber <matthew…@cox.net> wrote:
>On 25 May 2004 06:18:42 GMT, nanekl…@aol.com (Nan Eklund) wrote:
>>Saccharin has been a GRAS (generally regarded as safe) substance since the time
>>of Teddy Roosevelt. No recognized scientific or regulatory organization has
>>ever disagreed.
>Baloney.
>The FDA banned it in the early 1970′s, It is a suspect carcinogen,
>however I’d emphasize the suspected part. The evidence upon which it
>was banned was not very convincing, however under the Delaney
>ammendment, the FDA had little choice in the matter. The statistical
>significance of the findings that lead the banning was better than
>chance, but not much better, usually it needs to be at least 20 times
>better to be considered valid.
Statistical significance tells me NOTHING about the effect.
The null hypothesis, absolutely NO effect, is essentially
impossible, so a "finding" that there is an effect, which
is all that statistical significance does, is useless.
But the wording of the Delaney amendment in effect enthrones
statistical significance for the carcinogenicity of additives.
The surprising thing is that there are chemicals whose effect
is so small that it does not show up with reasonable sample
sizes. The chemicals produced on the surface of broiled
meat or fish are far more carcinogenic than saccharin in the
massive doses given to the Canadian rats.
—
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hru…@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
On 27 May 2004 10:42:21 -0500, hru…@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Rubin) wrote:
>In article <p0b8b0tunec0v6r6p0tn941pj0kajal…@4ax.com>,
>matt weber <matthew…@cox.net> wrote:
>>On 25 May 2004 06:18:42 GMT, nanekl…@aol.com (Nan Eklund) wrote:
>>>Saccharin has been a GRAS (generally regarded as safe) substance since the time
>>>of Teddy Roosevelt. No recognized scientific or regulatory organization has
>>>ever disagreed.
>>Baloney.
>>The FDA banned it in the early 1970′s, It is a suspect carcinogen,
>>however I’d emphasize the suspected part. The evidence upon which it
>>was banned was not very convincing, however under the Delaney
>>ammendment, the FDA had little choice in the matter. The statistical
>>significance of the findings that lead the banning was better than
>>chance, but not much better, usually it needs to be at least 20 times
>>better to be considered valid.
>Statistical significance tells me NOTHING about the effect.
>The null hypothesis, absolutely NO effect, is essentially
>impossible, so a "finding" that there is an effect, which
>is all that statistical significance does, is useless.
>But the wording of the Delaney amendment in effect enthrones
>statistical significance for the carcinogenicity of additives.
>The surprising thing is that there are chemicals whose effect
>is so small that it does not show up with reasonable sample
>sizes. The chemicals produced on the surface of broiled
>meat or fish are far more carcinogenic than saccharin in the
>massive doses given to the Canadian rats.
Yes, but those chemicals are not food additives, so they aren’t
covered by the Delaney amendment.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
matt weber <matthew…@cox.net> wrote in message <news:p0b8b0tunec0v6r6p0tn941pj0kajalrn9@4ax.com>…
> On 25 May 2004 06:18:42 GMT, nanekl…@aol.com (Nan Eklund) wrote:
> >Saccharin has been a GRAS (generally regarded as safe) substance since the time
> >of Teddy Roosevelt. No recognized scientific or regulatory organization has
> >ever disagreed.
> Baloney.
> The FDA banned it in the early 1970′s, It is a suspect carcinogen,
> however I’d emphasize the suspected part. The evidence upon which it
> was banned was not very convincing, however under the Delaney
> ammendment, the FDA had little choice in the matter. The statistical
> significance of the findings that lead the banning was better than
> chance, but not much better, usually it needs to be at least 20 times
> better to be considered valid.
> >Nan, Type 2
Sacchrin was never banned in the U.S. although a ban was proposed in
1977.
"Then in 1977, a Canadian study that looked specifically at the role
of impurities–and of other suspected tumor causes, such as parasites
in test animals–showed convincingly that saccharin itself was causing
bladder cancer in rats. That same year, FDA proposed to ban saccharin
for all uses except as an over-the-counter drug in the form of a
tabletop sweetener. At the time, saccharin was the only available
alternative to sugar.
The FDA proposal prompted a public outcry, fueled in part by media
reports that the test rats were fed the equivalent of as many as 800
diet sodas a day. Congress responded by passing the Saccharin Study
and Labeling Act, which placed a two-year moratorium on any ban of the
sweetener while additional safety studies were conducted. The law also
required that any foods containing saccharin must carry a label that
reads "Use of this product may be hazardous to your health. This
product contains saccharin which has been determined to cause cancer
in laboratory animals." Congress has extended the moratorium several
times, most recently renewing it until 2002."
http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1999/699_sugar.html
–Hua Kul
huaREMOVE…@hotmail.com
It was certainly removed from general sale, and came off the GRAS
list. Product containing it had to be labled as potentially
carcinogenic.
matt weber <matthew…@cox.net> wrote in message <news:f2cqb0lmhb509f7o6b7l4nheintse3d845@4ax.com>…
> It was certainly removed from general sale, and came off the GRAS
> list. Product containing it had to be labled as potentially
> carcinogenic.
Um…I don’t think it’s currently unavailable, and I don’t believe
sales were ever stopped by the government. I use it in my coffee.
It’s on the tables in the restaurants I frequent. There are still
some soda pops that use it. Any supermarket would carry boxes of
packets that contain 36mg of calcium saccharin with the brand name
Sweet’n Low.
–Hua Kul
huaREMOVE…@hotmail.com
try quoting, so people can know what you are replying to
Sorry Matt, you are 100% wrong. For a short while, some years ago, a
warning had to be posted, but, when it was totally cleared as a
carcinogen, that was removed.
it is completely permitted, and for sale everywhere.
matt weber wrote:
> It was certainly removed from general sale, and came off the GRAS
> list. Product containing it had to be labled as potentially
> carcinogenic.
–
"…in addition to being foreign territory the past is, as history, a
hall of mirrors that reflect the needs of souls observing from the present"
Glen Cook
I did a paper back in the 70s on the FDA and food industry and came across the
anecdote about Roosevelt and saccharin.
Seems the FDA wanted to ban it and Teddy’s doctor had told him to use it and
lose weight, so Teddy threw his (then) considerable weight into getting
saccharin on the GRAS list.
Nothing new in the world of government and interferance.
Nan, Type 2
Only trouble – your anecdote is totally false
Nan Eklund wrote:
> I did a paper back in the 70s on the FDA and food industry and came across the
> anecdote about Roosevelt and saccharin.
> Seems the FDA wanted to ban it and Teddy’s doctor had told him to use it and
> lose weight, so Teddy threw his (then) considerable weight into getting
> saccharin on the GRAS list.
> Nothing new in the world of government and interferance.
> Nan, Type 2
–
"…in addition to being foreign territory the past is, as history, a
hall of mirrors that reflect the needs of souls observing from the present"
Glen Cook
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 00:15:45 -0400, Ted Rosenberg
<tedrosenb…@iname.com> wrote:
>Only trouble – your anecdote is totally false
>Nan Eklund wrote:
>> I did a paper back in the 70s on the FDA and food industry and came across the
>> anecdote about Roosevelt and saccharin.
>> Seems the FDA wanted to ban it and Teddy’s doctor had told him to use it and
>> lose weight, so Teddy threw his (then) considerable weight into getting
>> saccharin on the GRAS list.
>> Nothing new in the world of government and interferance.
>> Nan, Type 2
Saccharin was pushed in WW2 as a sugar substitute.
It had been around for many years. For me, it was terrible
with a bitter taste. Sugar substitutes have been increasing
since the 50′s when heart trouble became "The disease".
There was a fight over the market and a lot of controversy.
The cyclamates were banned after being accused of being
a cancer causing agent. I think I read later the research
turned to be faulty. Aspartame was found and it occurs in
some common foods so it was easier to get to market.
People were consuming it already. It was pointed out that someone
that complained about it had a lot of the compound in their diet.
Some studies did indicate that Saccharin did cause cancer n test
animals but since it had been around a long time, it is
still on the market.
A lot of the publicity over the Thalamide issue bled over
into other areas and the laws were changed. Then the
alarmists had a field day.
I do remember that coke was widely accused of causing
many problems. "It was poison"". I later heard that
competing drink makers were spreading the rumors.
Soft drinks and sweeteners are a large business and
we do not know the truth in many cases. The wide use
without a disaster seems to indicate that the stories have little
validity.
We must remember that the water supply contains a lot of
questionable items It is much better than drinking from some creek
or Typhoid contaminated well. The carbonated beverages are
probably one of the safest sources of water. In any case it is a low
order thing that diabetics should not worry about.
Some people make a good living by being alarmists. I do
know one. He could not get a job after college and
finally found a cause.
Guy
I do not disagree, However in carbonated water it is necessary
to control the water quality or else the drink will go "flat". Ugh.
Personally I have water that has a reverse osmosis filter. It is
near "lab" grade quality. My preference.
But we see some being critical of it. Allegedly it leaches
calcium out of the bones. A lot of the allegations come
from very unqualified people. Guessing.
There is a lot we do not know so we fill the void with
plausible stories. Discussion sure helps in filling the
void a drop at a time.
Guy
On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 08:02:21 +0000 (UTC), c…@holyrood.ed.ac.uk (Chris
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Malcolm) wrote:
>Guy <gs…@intertex.net> writes:
>>We must remember that the water supply contains a lot of
>>questionable items It is much better than drinking from some creek
>>or Typhoid contaminated well. The carbonated beverages are
>>probably one of the safest sources of water.
>In the UK this has been shown to be an alarmist view. Tests have shown
>that in most parts of the UK, the public tap water supply is better
>quality than the lowest quartile of bottled "mineral" and "spring"
>waters.
>As for carbonated beverages, there is no doubt that whatever the
>beverage happens to be sweetened and flavoured with, it would be
>better for your health to drink plain water.