CSPI Not Sweet on Sweeteners
Did you know that the Center For Science in the Public
Interest STILL considers saccharin "UNSAFE" ?
Please see:
acsh.orgnews detail.aspOpen ↗
Why do people still rely on them for credible health
information? Jeff
May 24, 2004
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:
nih.govniehs 15.htmOpen ↗ .)
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:
acsh.orgnews detail.aspOpen ↗
For more on Saccharin, please see ACSH's classic, Facts
Versus Fears
:acsh.orgpub detail.aspOpen ↗
And if you want to know a bit more about "carcinogens,"
please see our Holiday Dinner Menu:
acsh.orgpub detail.aspOpen ↗