|
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 (May 29, 2004)
From the newsgroup: misc.health.diabetes
===
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.)
Post a follow-up to this message
Message 3 in thread
From: Nan Eklund (naneklund@aol.com)
Subject: Re: ACSH: CSPI Not Sweet on Sweeteners
View this article only
Newsgroups: misc.health.diabetes
Date: 2004-05-24 23:19:03 PST
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
Post a follow-up to this message
Message 4 in thread
From: matt weber (mattheww50@cox.net)
Subject: Re: ACSH: CSPI Not Sweet on Sweeteners
View this article only
Newsgroups: misc.health.diabetes
Date: 2004-05-25 22:35:40 PST
On 25 May 2004 06:18:42 GMT, naneklund@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
Post a follow-up to this message
Message 5 in thread
From: Herman Rubin (hrubin@odds.stat.purdue.edu)
Subject: Re: ACSH: CSPI Not Sweet on Sweeteners
View this article only
Newsgroups: misc.health.diabetes
Date: 2004-05-27 08:50:06 PST
In article ,
matt weber wrote:
>On 25 May 2004 06:18:42 GMT, naneklund@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
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Post a follow-up to this message
Message 6 in thread
From: Herman Rubin (hrubin@odds.stat.purdue.edu)
Subject: Re: ACSH: CSPI Not Sweet on Sweeteners
View this article only
Newsgroups: misc.health.diabetes
Date: 2004-05-25 14:30:14 PST
In article <40B2B2BC.3C3D1A6A@ckt.net>,
Cindy Wells 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
>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
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Post a follow-up to this message
Message 7 in thread
From: Cindy Wells (JS_rrwells_nts@ckt.net)
Subject: Re: ACSH: CSPI Not Sweet on Sweeteners
View this article only
Newsgroups: misc.health.diabetes
Date: 2004-05-25 18:18:32 PST
Herman Rubin wrote:
>
>
> 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.)
> --
> 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
> hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Post a follow-up to this message
Message 8 in thread
From: George Eberhardt (geberhardt@comcast.net)
Subject: Re: ACSH: CSPI Not Sweet on Sweeteners
View this article only
Newsgroups: misc.health.diabetes
Date: 2004-05-26 14:01:33 PST
"Herman Rubin" wrote in message
news:c90di7$1svm@odds.stat.purdue.edu...
> In article <40B2B2BC.3C3D1A6A@ckt.net>,
> Cindy Wells wrote:
>
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
Post a follow-up to this message
Message 9 in thread
From: Herman Rubin (hrubin@odds.stat.purdue.edu)
Subject: Re: ACSH: CSPI Not Sweet on Sweeteners
View this article only
Newsgroups: misc.health.diabetes
Date: 2004-05-25 14:30:07 PST
In article ,
jeff stier 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.
--
|
