Artificial Sweeteners

Sweeteners to Avoid

Aspartame (NutraSweet, Equal, Canderel)
Neotame
Sucralose (Splenda, Altern)
Acesulfame-K (Sunette, Sweet & Safe, Sweet One)
Cyclamates
Saccharin
Refined Sugar #
High Fructose Sweeteners #


Sweeteners to Use

Stevia *
Other Low Carb Sweeteners
Evaporated Cane Juice
Fruit Juice
Rice Syrup
Honey
Licorice Root (small amounts)
Fructooligosaccharides (FOS)
Amasake
Vegetable Glycerin
Sugar Alcohols (xylitol, sorbitol) ^
Maple Syrup (Without Added Sugar)
Barley Malt


• Safe for Diabetics
• # Can Be Used in Very Small Amounts

Aspartame:
In anecdotal reports, aspartame has been linked to various neuropsychiatric disorders, including panic attacks, mood changes, visual hallucinations, manic episodes, and isolated dizziness.

Symptoms included headache, nervousness, dizziness, memory impairment, nausea, temper outbursts, and depression. None of these conditions has been rigorously proven.

Initial safety testing suggested that aspartame caused brain tumors in rats; as a result, the additive was held up in the United States for many years in the FDA's approval process. In 1980, the FDA convened a Public Board of Inquiry (PBOI) consisting of independent advisors charged with examining the purported relationship between aspartame and brain cancer. The PBOI's conclusions were unclear as to whether aspartame causes brain damage, and recommended against approving aspartame at that time, citing unanswered questions about cancer in laboratory rats. In 1981, FDA Commissioner Arthur Hull Hayes, newly appointed by President Ronald Reagan, approved aspartame as a food additive. He was closely associated with the artificial sweetener industry, having several close friends, most notably Donald Rumsfeld, former United States Secretary of Defense, and then the CEO of G.D. Searle. Hayes cited data from a single Japanese study that had not been available to the members of the PBOI, as his reason for approval

A recent research showed a clear link between this substance and cancer; a link that may be sufficient evidence for the FDA to pull aspartame from the market. This research has led the Center for Science in the Public Interest to classify aspartame as a substance to be avoided in its Chemical Cuisine Directory. However, the EFSA's press release about the study, published on 5 May 2006, concluded that the increased incidence of lymphomas/leukaemias reported in treated rats was unrelated to aspartame, the kidney tumors found at high doses of aspartame were not relevant to humans, and that based on all available scientific evidence to date, there was no reason to revise the previously established Acceptable Daily Intake levels for aspartame

Saccharin:
Foods containing saccharin no longer carry a label stating that the "use of this product may be hazardous to your health ...contains saccharin which has been determined to cause cancer in laboratory animals." This warning was lifted in 2001 by the American FDA as saccharin no longer has been connected to cancer in human beings.

Saccharin may be present in drugs in substantial amounts. Ingestion of the recommended daily dosage of chewable aspirin or acetaminophen tablets in a school-age child would provide approximately the same amount of saccharin contained in one can of a diet soft drink. This amount, relative to the body weight of a child younger than 9 or 10 years, ingested for prolonged periods would be considered as "heavy use," as defined in a major large-scale FDA/National Cancer Institute epidemiologic study. In this study, heavy use of artificial sweeteners was associated with a significantly increased risk for the development of bladder cancer. An independent review of this study concluded that there was no association. An investigation of saccharin performed by the American Medical Association in 1985 concluded that bladder changes were species-specific, were confined to the second generation of male rats, and occurred in association with large doses (equivalent to several hundred cans of diet soft drink per day). The no-effect level was equivalent to 500 mg/kg/d.[68,69] Saccharin is not genotoxic; the presumed mechanism of toxicity is the binding of saccharin to urinary proteins (not normally found in humans), creating a nidus for the formation of silicate crystals, which are cytotoxic to bladder epithelium.

Hypersensitivity can usually be confirmed by a radioallergosorbent test for saccharin. In a series of 42 patients with adverse effects resulting from consumption of saccharin in pharmaceutical agents, pruritus and urticaria were the most common reactions, followed by eczema, photosensitivity,
and prurigo. Other reactions include wheezing, nausea, diarrhea, tongue blisters, tachycardia, fixed eruptions, headache, diuresis, and sensory neuropathy.

Tagatose:

The studies did, however, find that patients who consumed large amounts of tagatose experienced gastrointestinal distress, including diarrhea, nausea and flatulence. The intestinal problems apparently result because most tagatose passes through the digestive tract without being absorbed -- a key reason why it's lower in calories.

Effects of artificial colours on children's behaviour

New research into the possible effects of artificial food colours on children’s behaviour was published on 6 September, 2007 in the medical journal The Lancet. This study has been reviewed by experts in the United Kingdom and is described by the Food Standards Agency as a helpful additional contribution to our knowledge on the possible effects of artificial food colours on children’s behaviour.

Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) has been aware of the study and we have been examining it, as have other food agencies around the world. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) convened a panel of experts with expertise in behaviour, child psychiatry, allergy and statistics to consider the study. EFSA concluded that the study provided limited evidence that the mixtures of colours and sodium benzoate had an effect on the activity and attention of children in the general population and that there was not enough evidence to change the current limits or use of these additives.