Artificial Sweeteners are OK again -- this week anyway


#1

So now fake sugar is apparently all right. Still tastes terrible.


#2

Sugar is still perfectly good as far as I’m concerned.


#3

I never met an artificial sweetener I liked.


#4

We use Splenda (or it’s generic equivalents) in making pitchers of tea for iced tea…and, as a family, we drink about a gallon of the stuff every day. Our daughter is addicted to “Diet Coke,” but we don’t drink any other “diet” drinks with artificial sweeteners. My wife uses sugar in her coffee and I use powdered creamers–which has SOME small amounts of sugar in it.


#5

Being north of seventy (as I know several others are here), I couldn’t care less about artificial sweeteners vs. sugar. So what . . . something else will likely get me at this stage.

Now if I were 20, I might pay attention to this stuff . . . but now?


#6

I’m not willing to give aspartame or saccharin a pass just yet. But supposedly sugar is bad for you. So I’ve conditioned myself to drink my coffee with stevia and a drop of honey.

But I’m amused by the competition between experts. The article says:

You can safely ignore …, according to a team of U.S. and European scientists.

So for years, various scientists have said artificial sweeteners are dangerous. And now a bunch of scientists say artificial sweeteners are safe.

It reminds me of the never ending caffeine wars. When I was in the navy, a report came out that proved caffeine causes pancreatic cancer, so someone posted a big sign on the coffee pot that said: “WARNING: Coffee causes pancreatic cancer.” We all got a good chuckle as we filled up our mugs. Later, some other scientists proved it doesn’t.


#7

Reminds me of the Canadian “scientists” who claimed that consuming cyclamates would cause bladder cancer. They were commonly used sweeteners in soft drinks like Tab at the time. Turns out, their “data” came from force-feeding MASSIVE amounts of cyclamates to mice. Equivalent dosages for a human being would equal drinking 3 CASES of cyclamate-sweetened soft drinks per day for 75 YEARS…and then all it would do was raise the CHANCES of bladder cancer by about 10%! No harm done…except to the cyclamate-manufacturers who all went bankrupt as a result.


#8

This needed more than a :heart: It needs an :rofl:


#9

Also deserving of a :vb-lol:


#10

This is true not only of cyclamates, but of a lot of other “toxics” advertised as such by the EPA.

For example, take vinyl chloride. EPA regulated refinery flares down to parts per trillion of vinyl chloride BASED on the exposure of rats for what amounted to ridiculous levels FOR years and years.

Consider this: You are exposed to parts per trillion levels of vinyl chloride off-gassing from a new car (it’s the vinyl chloride that gives the “new car” smell).

I’ve yet to hear of someone fataly injured by the new car smell.


#11

I heard on the news once that it’s supposed to be mildly carcinogenic. Is this what you’re referring to?


#12

Coupla’ things on this.

First of all, the phrase “mildly carcinogenic” can apply to almost any substance.

Second of all, WHO (?) decided the new car smell was “mildly carcinogenic”?

And thirdly, what was the “news” outlet?

Finally, exposure to a substance that’s considered “mildly carcinogenic” has to be evaluated in terms of HOW LONG that exposure lasts.

The car salesman that spends all day, 7 days a week, on the showroom floor likely has more exposure to the “new car smell” than the guy who buys a new car (of course, a car salesman wouldn’t last too long if all he did was spend time on the showroom floor anyway).

In answer to your question, vinyl chloride has been listed as a “nasty” by . . . drum roll . . . The Independent Republic of Kalifornia.

Calling vinyl chloride “mildly carcinogenic” is pretty much akin to calling WATER dangerous to your health. Yes, too much water CAN kill you. Likewise, heavy exposure to high levels of vinyl chloride is dangerous.

I don’t, however, view the new car smell as dangerous.


#13

Hasn’t life been determined to contribute to cancer according to the state of California?


#14

I can’t remember where I heard it. It may have been on Family Life, which is a source whose integrity I trust, although I don’t trust every last thing they report (they often quote sources, and their info is only as good as the source).

California; might have known. I’ve been seeing these labels that say: “Contains (fill in the blank), a substance known by the state of Califoria to cause cancer.” I always thought “determined” would be much more appropriate than “know.” The government of California doesn’t even “know” it’s collective head from its collective backside; probably because the former is lodged up the latter. For which reason, I don’t know their collective head from their collective backside…


#15

So let me get this straight… people who smoke, drink, breathe, and eat are going to die at some point from something that is caused by something.

Does that sum it up?

For what it’s worth, I like artificial sweeteners because regular Coke or other sugar drinks give me horrible stomach aches.

I drink my coffee black.

I like the pink packets when I use a sweetener. Sometimes a pink and a blue for iced tea.

Speaking of which, it’s time for coffee.


#16

Precisely.

"Contains life, a substance known by the state of Califoria to cause cancer.”


#17

I wonder how long before they’ll be requiring Bibles to say: “Contains information about salvation, a substance known by the state of California to cause cancer.”


#18

Yeah, I remember all that. I liked cyclamates; they actually tasted decent. But the sugar industry was upset with them, and as soon as they were banned, the price of sugar skyrocketed - until the government (did something right here, I guess), decided it might be a good idea to investigate the outrageous increases in sugar price - like from $1.13 for 10 lbs. to $6 in a few months. Sugar prices immediately dropped - but sugar-heavy products, like candy, didn’t. By the time the the testers were exposed, it was too late for the cyclamate industry. The testers defended their testing method by saying, “It would just bring the results quicker.” It was also heavily mixed with saccharin which had already been “proven”(?) to be a carcinogen.


#19

That’s Prop 65.

Kalifornia requires that any facility storing Prop 65 substances (and the Prop 65 list of “carcinogenic” substances is both lengthy and includes just about EVERYTHING) post a “warning” that a person is entering a facility that stores these substances.

Thus the local convenience store, for example, must post a Prop 65 warning . . . which scares the bejesus out of JoeSixpack as he enters the store.

Why anyone would have a business in Kalifornia baffles me.


#20

Yes, I agree with you.

Nevertheless, the Prop 65 Committee (whose members are appointed by the governor and who “know” carcinogenic substances) make up this list and it is cast in stone.

How do they “know” what should be on that list? They ask PD’s rat that’s been exposed to this substance 24/7.