Artificals sweeteners may harm your health even no-calorie ones

A new research in Trends in Endocrinology & Metabolism along with previous studies indicate that everyone should say goodbye to these no-calorie sweeteners for several important reasons you may not even realize.

What’s not so sweet about artificial sweeteners

If you believe no-calorie artificial sweeteners are safe and healthy, that they can help you lose weight or prevent you from gaining weight, and that they are good to use if you have diabetes, you would not be alone in these beliefs. However, a new study, as well as previous investigations, suggests quite the opposite.

Two thirds of Americans are either overweight or obese, so providing more products with artificial sweeteners should be a good thing, right? One area where consumption of diet products has risen steadily is diet drinks, with a recent report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention noting that diet beverage intake increased from 18 percent in 2000 to 21 percent in 2010 among women and from 14 percent to 19 percent among men during the same period.

However, drinking just one artificially sweetened beverage per day may increase your risk for a variety of health problems, including type 2 diabetes, obesity, metabolic syndrome, and cardiovascular disease. If you thought sugar-based drinks were associated with these same risks, you are right.

In fact, according to Susan E. Swithers of Purdue University, the author of a new study, the data to support claims that artificially sweetened drinks help with weight loss, weight gain prevention, and other benefits “are not very strong.” She also stated that “although it seems like common sense that diet sodas would not be as problematic as regular sodas, common sense is not always right.”

What might be considered common sense, however, is avoiding both artificially sweetened and sugar-sweetened beverages, since both types reportedly are associated with major health problems. The reason for this finding, according to the authors, seems to be that artificial sweeteners alter certain patterns in the brain’s pleasure regions, causing people who drink these beverages to not feel satisfied by the sweet taste.

In fact, when lab animals have been given artificial sweeteners, they have tended to highly desire more sweets. The result has been a tendency to overeat sugary, high-calorie foods and gain significant amounts of weight.

Thus the not-so-sweet news for anyone who has been consuming artificially sweetened beverages and foods is that “the intake of sugars needs to be expanded to limit intake of all sweeteners, not just sugars,” according to the study’s author. But there is more.

More health hazards from artificial sweeteners

Let’s look at some previous studies on artificial sweeteners and their potential hazards. Aspartame is a good place to begin, as there are reports that the chemical has a negative impact on brain function.

One new study from the Washington University School of Medicine looked at aspartame (e.g., Equal, NutraSweet) and its safety record. Investigators reported several concerns about aspartame:
Aspartame metabolizes into phenylalanine, aspartic acid, and methanol, and excess phenylalanine has an impact on serotonin and dopamine levels, which are hormones involved in the regulation of appetite, mood, and sleep.

One of aspartame’s metabolites, called diketopiperazine, has cancer-causing properties and plays a role in the development of tumors of the central nervous system. Thus use of foods and beverages that contain aspartame may pose a health hazard.

Other dangers of using artificial sweeteners relate to an increased risk of developing conditions associated with type 2 diabetes, including glucose resistance and insulin resistance. In particular, investigators at Washington University School of Medicine looked at Splenda (sucralose) and its impact on glucose and insulin resistance.

In the study, researchers evaluated the effect of artificial sweeteners among severely obese people who did not have diabetes and who did not use artificial sweeteners regularly. They found that use of an artificial sweetener “was related to an enhanced blood insulin and glucose response.”

A Danish study evaluated the impact of both sugar-based and artificially sweetened beverages on pregnant women. Overall the investigators discovered that high intake of both types of beverages is associated with an increased risk of preterm delivery.

A possible link between artificial sweeteners and cancer has long been debated, with scores of studies indicating an increased risk of various types of tumors in animal studies. Far fewer studies have examined the association in humans.

One example in the latter category is a study that was published in the December 2012 issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. The Boston-based researchers looked at the intake of artificially sweetened and sugar-based sodas and the risk of leukemia and lymphoma in adults.

The investigators reviewed data from the Nurses’ Health Study and Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, spanning 22 years of information. They found an increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphomas and multiple myelomas among men (but not women) who consumed at least one diet soda daily when compared with men who did not drink diet soda.

The bottom line is that much controversy and debate surround the use of artificial sweeteners. Scores of studies in animals suggest their use can cause a variety of cancers, allergic reactions, and even neurological problems, yet authorities such as the Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the European Food Safety Authority, among others, have continued to declare these synthetic products are safe for human consumption.

A number of health experts and consumer advocate groups, such as Dr. Andrew Weil and the Center for Science in the Public Interest, have pointed out the health dangers of artificial sweeteners. Weil, for example, explains in a Prevention article that these synthetic sweeteners have “never been shown to help anyone lose weight, and some of them are downright bad for you.”

Weil also warned that “aspartame, saccharin, and sucralose all have been shown to increase the risk of some health problems, including obesity, headaches, and some types of cancer.” Are these products you want to feed to your children and yourself?

Evidence against the safety of artificial sweeteners continues to build, despite resistance from food industry manufacturers and others with a financial interest in their remaining on the market. Perhaps it’s time for everyone who is concerned about their health to say goodbye to artificial sweeteners.

Source

EFSA-Public consultation: dietary reference values for vitamin C

EFSA has launched an open consultation on its draft scientific opinion on dietary reference values for vitamin C. The document proposes dietary reference values for vitamin C for adults, infants and children, and pregnant and lactating women. The highlights considered are:

The Panel concludes that an Average Requirement (AR) and a Population Reference Intake (PRI) for vitamin C can be derived for adults and children based on vitamin C status, and for pregnant and lactating women based on estimation of additional needs and factorial calculation of losses in breast milk, respectively.

For infants aged 7-11 months, the Panel retains the PRI set by the SCF (1993), i.e. 20 mg/day, as no suitable evidence has emerged since the previous assessment.

The Panel also considered several health outcomes that may be associated with vitamin C intake; however, the available data were considered insufficient for the setting of DRVs.

PRI (mg/day)
Age	Males	Females
7-11 months	20	20
1-3 years	20	20
4-6 years	30	30
7-10 years	45	45
11-14 years	70	70
15-17 years	100	90
≥ 18 years	110	95
Pregnancy	-	+10
Lactation	-	+75

* Average Requirement (AR): nutrient intake value that is estimated to reach the requirements in 50 per cent of people in a specific group, usually defined by age and sex.

5 Reasons a Monsanto Exec Does Not Deserve the World Food Prize

1. No one knows how GMO food will affect our health.

A recent study found that pigs fed GMO corn and soy feed had a notably higher rate of severe stomach inflammation. A study published last September found that rats fed GMO corn developed tumors and died prematurely.

No extensive studies have yet been done on the effects of GMOs on humans. Some potential risks include the introduction of new allergens in our food supply and the development of antibiotic resistance.

2. Some insects are already evolving to become resistant to GMOs.

Rootworms are becoming resistant to GMO crops — disturbingly, as one of the”advantages” of GMOs was supposed to be that insecticides would not have to be used on them. Indeed, sales of corn insecticide made by Syngenta (the company that Chilton is a scientist at) more than doubled in 2012 as a result of “increased grower awareness” of rootworm resistance in the U.S.

3. Monsanto has contributed generously to the the World Food Prize Foundation.

In 2008, Monsanto gave the foundation a pledge of $5 million. The World Food Prize Foundation has also been previously criticized for favoring industrial agriculture; giving the prize to a Monsanto executive seems unlikely to change such criticism.

4. It is illegal to import GMOs to some parts of the world, due to concerns about their safety.

The European Union, Japan and other countries do not allow GMO seed or crops to enter their borders. The EU categorizes GMOs as “new foods” which must be subjected to extensive scientific testing on a case-by-case basis by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). After an illegal strain of GMO wheat was recently found on a farm in Oregon, Japan was so concerned that it suspended some wheat imports from the U.S.

GMO seed has been imported to and cultivated in countries in Africa and Asia (including India and China). But millions of small-scale farmers in Africa have repeatedly objected to using GMO crops and want their governments to ban them.

5. GMO crops could wipe out seed diversity.

Farmers in Africa are rejecting GMO crops not only because of the little that we know about them. As Million Belay and Ruth Nyambura write in the Guardian, small-scale African farmers are more than wary about how GMO crops could affect traditional farming practices developed over centuries.

Traditional African farming systems have indeed “developed an incredible diversity of seed varieties, which are able to deal with the multiple challenges of farming.” Many types of seeds have been bred for flavor and nutrition and have also “evolved with local pests and diseases and are adapted to different soils and weather patterns.” Using them, Belay and Nyambura emphasize, is “a far better strategy of resilience than developing a single crop that is bound to fail in the face of climate change.”

Even more, because companies like Monsanto make saving GMO seed illegal, small-scale farmers in Africa could face a huge dilemma. 80 percent of farmers in Africa save seed, say Belay and Nyambura, and “how are they supposed to protect the varieties they have developed, crossed and shared over generations from GM contamination?” Maintaining seed diversity and promoting healthy soil ecology are essential to “real food security” and a strategy more than worthy of recognition — maybe the World Food Prize Foundation will take note of such when choosing future prize recipients.

Source