Aspartame is one of the two most dangerous artificial sweeteners in use today (sucralose aka 'Splenda' being the other). Aspartame is a man-made neurological poison serving as one of the most addictive neurotoxins used in our food supply, and it is ingested by two-thirds of the population in over 6000 products in one hundred countries worldwide.* The most popular use for aspartame is in diet drinks for weight loss. In reality, diet drinks do not aide in losing weight; and according to Dr. Helen P. Hazuda, Ph.D., professor and chief of the Division of Clinical Epidemiology in the School of Medicine, "they may be free of calories but not of consequences". Dr. Hazuda was the principal investigator who led a large, population-based study for two decades on diet drink consumption. The study found: Diet soft drink users, as a group, experienced 70 percent greater increases in waist circumference compared with non-users. Frequent users, who said they consumed two or more diet sodas a day, experienced waist circumference increases that were 500 percent greater than those of non-users. Abdominal fat is a major risk factor for diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, and other chronic conditions. The authors of the study wrote, "These results suggest that, amidst the national drive to reduce consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks, policies that would promote the consumption of diet soft drinks may have unintended deleterious effects".
Acesulfame-K is another sweetener, like aspartame, which was discovered by accident. Acesulfame-K is very widely used but due to its bitter taste, it is often blended with other artificial sweeteners including aspartame or sucralose (Splenda). Of all artificial sweeteners approved for use, acesulfame-K has the least amount of research performed; and despite poor-quality toxicity tests, was still approved as an artificial sweetener by the FDA.* There have been no long-term studies to determine what sort of health effects acesulfame-K causes in humans. Early studies showed a link to multiple cancer developments in lab animals. In Drug and Chemical Toxicology, a peer-reviewed medical journal, acesulfame-K was found to have potential of inducing DNA damage in mice.* In the journal PLOS ONE, the data from a 2013 study suggested that chronic use of acesulfame-K could affect cognitive functions, potentially via altering neuro-metabolic functions in male mice.* These findings were important since they represent a potential health risk associated with its exposure.
Acesulfame-K is a potassium salt which contains methylene chloride, a known carcinogen. Methylene chloride, also called dichloromethane, is a volatile, colorless liquid with a chloroform-like odor. It is used in paint stripping, pharmaceutical manufacturing, polyurethane foam manufacturing, and in metal cleaning and degreasing. As reported on the OSHA.gov site, employees exposed to methylene chloride are at increased risk of developing cancer, adverse effects on the heart, central nervous system and liver, and skin or eye irritation. The exposure may occur through inhalation, by absorption through the skin, or through contact with the skin. MedicineNet.com states long-term exposure to methylene chloride can cause: headaches, depression, nausea, mental confusion, liver effects, kidney effects, visual disturbances, and cancer in humans.
Saccharin is the oldest artificial sweetener. It was discovered by accident in 1879 by a researcher who forgot to wash his hands before lunch. He had spilled a chemical on his hands and it, in turn, caused the bread he ate to taste unusually sweet.
Research in 1977 showed bladder tumors in male rats with the ingestion of saccharin. The FDA proposed a ban on saccharin based on the Delaney Clause of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act enacted in 1958 which prohibited the addition to the human food supply of any chemical that had caused cancer in humans or animals. Saccharin was the only artificial sweetener available at that time; therefore, the public did not want to lose the diet products that contained it. After opposition to the ban, congress intervened by allowing saccharin to remain in the food supply as long as the label carried this warning: "Use of this product may be hazardous to your health. This product contains saccharin which has been determined to cause cancer in laboratory animals." After more than 30 human studies were completed, saccharin was considered safe for human consumption. It had been found that the results discovered in rats did not translate to humans. In 2000, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) of the National Institutes of Health concluded that saccharin should be removed from the list of potential carcinogens and the warning was removed from saccharin-containing products.
Concerns over the use of saccharin has prompted newer studies which have found that saccharin has been linked to weight gain,* urinary tract cancer,* DNA damage,*** aging,* atherosclerosis,* disruption of the balance and diversity of gut microbiota,* and hyperinsulinism.* Common side effects of saccharin use are believed to contribute to photo-sensitivity, nausea, digestive upset, tachycardia and some types of cancer.
Sucralose is a synthetic chemical originally cooked up in a laboratory that started off as a sugar molecule also known as sucrose (naturally occurring in most plants). The actual chemical name of Splenda is 1,6-dichloro-1,6-dideoxy-BETA-D-fructofuranosyl-4-chloro-4-deoxy-alpha-D-galactopyranoside. How is this chemical name derived? In a 5-step patented process, three chlorine molecules are added to the sugar molecule or sucrose. The sucrose molecule is a disaccharide that contains two single sugars, glucose and fructose, that are bound together. The chemical process to make sucralose alters the chemical composition of the sugar so much that it is somehow converted to a fructo-galactose molecule which does not occur in nature. The human body does not possess the ability to properly metabolize this type of sugar molecule. When you add chlorine molecules to sucrose, you make sucralose, a chlorine containing compound called a chlorocarbon. Chlorocarbons have been linked to cancer, birth defects, and a reduction in immune system functioning. They are known to be highly poisonous to living life which is why they are often used in disinfectants and insecticides.* When sucralose is ingested in the body, chlorocarbons release chlorine which is then taken up by cells resulting in cellular damage that eventually affects the organs and nervous system. Sucralose (Splenda) bears more chemical similarity to DDT than it does to sugar.
Sucralose is only produced to a purity level of 98%; therefore, it may contain up to 2% of toxic contaminants such as heavy metals, arsenic, and methanol. Some of the chemicals used to make this artificial sweetener are on the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) list of deadly poisons. These contaminants tend to bioaccumulate in the body with each causing their own health problems; therefore, the more sucralose you consume, the worse your health is likely to become. Other chemicals used in the production of sucralose are: acetone (nail polish remover), benzene (a known carcinogen used in oil and gasoline), methanol (wood alcohol used in windshield washer fluid and antifreeze) and formaldehyde (used to preserve dead bodies).
Sucralose (Splenda) is found in more than 4,500 products, including foods, beverages, and drugs. It is a highly toxic poison that could lead to long-term health problems. Splenda has been shown to harm the colon's beneficial bacteria, increase body weight, and alter liver and colon detoxification enzymes. It has been found to shrink thymus glands (the biological seat of immunity) and produce liver inflammation in rats and mice. These factors could increase a person's risk of developing colon cancer, as well as a number of immune-related disorders. In 2016, there was a study published in a peer-reviewed journal, the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health by Dr. Morando Soffritti and his co-workers at the prestigious Ramazzini Institute in Bologna, Italy. They found that life-long feeding of sucralose to male Swiss mice - an accepted animal model for human cancer risk - caused a dose-related, statistically significant increase in risk of blood cancers, especially leukemia. There have been NO long-term studies into the safety of sucralose in humans. The top 5 reasons to avoid Splenda: 1) it's toxic and carcinogenic, 2) increases risks of diabetes and obesity, 3) harms the gastrointestinal tract, 4) contaminates breast milk, and 5) suppresses thyroid function, disrupts hormones.
Neotame is a new version of aspartame. It is chemically related to aspartame but without the phenylalanine dangers for individuals suffering from phenylketonuria (PKU). This is because neotame contains 3,3-dimethylbutyl which blocks the production of phenylalanine; therefore, neotame does not need to bear a PKU warning label like aspartame. Note however that 3,3-dimethylbutyraldehyde is a highly flammable irritant, and carries risk statements for handling including irritating to skin, eyes, and respiratory system.
Monsanto developed Neotame as their aspartame patent was expiring. While the web site for neotame claims that there are over 100 scientific studies to support its safety, they are not readily available to the public. Monsanto's own pre-approval studies of neotame revealed adverse reactions. There were NO independent studies that found neotame to be safe. Both neotame and aspartame contain substances that are metabolized into formaldehyde, which is extremely toxic to your health, even in very small doses.* On August 16, 2000, the law firm of Hartman & Craven filed comments on the neotame docket pertaining to the lack of safety data submitted in support of neotame,* stating in part:
"A food additive petition has been submitted to the FDA for the artificial sweetener neotame. In that petition, the sponsor claims the data presented demonstrate that the compound produces no adverse effects at a dose of 1000 mg/kg/day in the rat. The sponsor also claims that the product should be safe for patients with diabetes.
A review of the data submitted to the FDA does not support these conclusions. In fact, no safe human usage level can be determined based on the submitted data. The animal experimental evidence indicates a toxic effect on growth. The clinical evidence raises concerns about glucose control in patients with diabetes. Searches for an explanation resolving the adverse findings leave no clear acceptable answers that would insure the safety of the public but does stimulate speculation on questions relating to possible liver effects."
Neotame has similar structure to aspartame - except that, from its structure, appears to be even more toxic than aspartame.
Advantame is the newest and sweetest artificial sweetener (20,000 sweeter than refined sugar) approved by the FDA. This sweet white powder is chemically made from a combination of aspartame and vanillin, an artificial vanilla flavor. It is too soon to have reported side effects for advantame; however, we can look at the risk of danger from its two components. The first component is aspartame which is extensively discussed above as the first dangerous artificial sweetener listed. The second component is vanillin, a synthetic version of the natural flavor vanilla which is extracted from vanilla orchid seeds. The demand for this universally loved flavor has always exceeded production so there have been many processes over the years for manufacturing it artificially. Currently, some vanillin is made from lignin, a byproduct of the paper and wood pulp industries. But most vanillin is made from guaiacol, a petrochemical precursor.*
Lisa Leffert, a Senior Scientist at The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPINET), raised concerns about test results noted in the Federal Register (where the study can be found). Her concern was that in the study, the number of mice that survived to the end was below the FDA's own scientific recommendations and is therefore inadequate to provide confidence in the safety of a chemical likely to be consumed by millions of people.
Individuals with the genetic disorder PKU (phenylketonuria) have a difficult time metabolizing phenylalanine, which is a component of both aspartame and advantame. The FDA does require label information about aspartame to warn individuals about its presence in foods; however, when evaluating whether or not this label should be applied to foods with advantame, the FDA decided that it was not necessary. Their reasoning is that advantame is much sweeter than aspartame, and the amount needed to achieve the same level of sweetness is so low that alerts are not necessary.
The Truth on Truvia by Dietitian Cassie
Are Truvia and Stevia the same thing?
Thanks to a false-advertising job well-done, many health-conscious consumers have been tricked into believing that Truvia is the same thing as Stevia. The (disappointing) truth is that, despite the fact that Truvia is marketed as a “stevia-based sugar substitute,” it is NOT equivalent to Stevia. Not even close, actually. Get this: the ingredient list for Truvia is as follows: Erythritol, Rebiana and Natural Flavors. Just three ingredients and Stevia isn’t even one of them! That right there should tell us something (for starters, not to trust the product manufacturer…which by the way is Coca-Cola teamed up with a company called Cargill…) Let's take a look at those three ingredients that make up Truvia:
1. Erythritol: A sugar alcohol which is made by processing genetically modified corn; this is the primary ingredient in Truvia. Sugar alcohols are notoriously known for their unpleasant side effects. Our bodies do a poor job at digesting sugar alcohols (which is why they are lower in calories), but because they aren’t completely digested, they hang out in our intestines where they are fermented by colonic bacteria. The by-products of fermentation include gastric distress, diarrhea, cramping, gas, and bloating. Yuck. That’s ingredient #1.
2. Rebiana: Half of one percent of Truvia is Rebiana. The truth is that the only reason Truvia can mention anything about Stevia is because Rebiana is derived from a Stevia plant. But again, don’t be fooled. Rebiana is certainly not the same thing as Stevia. It is a molecule of the stevia plant. Furthermore, Rebiana is actually 400 times sweeter than sugar, but you’ll notice that Truvia is only twice as sweet as sugar. If you do the math, you’ll see that if a container of Truvia was divided into 200 parts, 199 of them would be Erythritol and only one would be Rebiana (which, again, isn’t even Stevia, but a mere molecule of the Stevia plant). In conclusion, Truvia is mostly Erythritol with a touch of a molecule of Stevia. Ingredient #2.
3. Natural Flavors. What does that mean? That’s a good question, and your guess is as good as mine. As you may already know, the term “natural” is not FDA-regulated; therefore, there are no standards when using this word. Maybe this is why you’ll find the word “natural” all over the packaging and promotion of Truvia—on their products, website, and advertising campaigns. This is a perfect example of how the term “natural” is used to deceive consumers, as nothing about Truvia is natural. The makers of Truvia are incredibly good at stretching the truth, along with other types of marketing deception such as using pictures of leaves and the color green on Truvia’s packaging and website, making it look “natural” and oh-so-similar to Stevia. It’s no wonder that when most people learn that Truvia and Stevia are two dreadfully different products they feel as if a bomb was dropped.
So, there you have it: the truth is that Truvia is a true sugar alcohol. Truvia is 99.9% pure genetically modified erythritol and less than a half percent of something made from Stevia—just so they can lie to you. If you dare, experiment at home and you’ll find that this highly processed sweetener doesn’t even taste like Stevia. Such a shame. Read More
Stevia in the Raw is a high-glycemic combination of GMO corn maltodextrin as found in the baking product line or dextrose as found in the little green packets plus refined stevioside. Refined Stevioside and Rebaudioside are made from the stevia leaf. Its sweetness is isolated and concentrated using heat and chemicals into a powder c.300 times sweeter than sugar, with reduced aftertaste. China is the world's primary producer of stevioside. Refined Stevioside and Rebaudioside are often sold in proprietary blends with cane sugar, artificial sweeteners, or other chemicals and rebranded under the generic name of "Stevia". Refined stevioside is sold under countless brand names such as Sun Crystals, SweetLeaf, Truvia, PureVia, Stevia in the Raw, Pyure, and NuStevia to name a few. Most Stevia extracts and powders are processed with toxic chemicals that are not removed before selling.
A healthier solution to using Stevia would be to look for natural zero-sugar sweeteners. A product called "Just Like Sugar" is a wonderful replacement.