Sugar and the Search for Alternatives
It has been known for some time that consuming excessive amounts of sugar in the diet can be harmful, producing surges of blood sugar levels which induce spikes in insulin responses, whereupon the blood sugar level plummets as rapidly as it previously soared. It is also capable of causing dental cavities and excess weight gain. However, switching to artificial sweeteners is not a problem-free option: concerns have been aired in the media in recent years about the safety of sugar substitutes.
Perhaps at the top of the list in this respect is the controversy surrounding the artificial sweetener ‘aspartame’ (also branded as ‘Sugar Twin’, ‘Equal’ and ‘NutraSweet’). Gaining Food and Drug Administration approval for certain culinary purposes (in breakfast cereals, puddings, chewing gum and gelatins and as a table-top sweetener) in 1981, aspartame is composed of two amino acids – phenylalanine and aspartic acid. These ‘building block’ molecules are also found in ordinary products, contributing to natural protein structure and to the molecular composition of certain natural flavor compounds. Following FDA approval as a ‘general purpose sweetener’ in 1996, aspartame can now be found in over 6,000 food products. Its chief advantage is not that it is calorie-free but that it is vastly sweeter than ordinary sugar (by a factor of between160 – 220). Much smaller amounts of this product can be used to sweeten foods to a level that only unhealthy amounts of sugar could achieve.
Controversy: Artificial Sweeteners and Risks to Health
Controversy took off in a significant way in 2005, when a team of Italian scientists at the European Ramazzini Foundation (ERF) in
The European equivalent of the FDA, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) also reviewed the ERF’s data in 2006, but concluded that, on the basis of all the evidence it had at its disposal, it did not consider the Italian team’s assertion that aspartame was a carcinogen to be justifiable. The FDA has seen the EFSA report and has yet to complete its own review; however, on the basis of the European review and other data, it has issued a provisional statement insisting that, despite examining more than 100 clinical and toxicological studies concerning the sweetener’s safety, it has not been presented with information that would lead it to alter its earlier approval.
Those who are implacably opposed to the sweetener will not be swayed by the FDA’s comments, however. It continues to generate considerable controversy and the mistrust surrounding it is featured prominently in many books, articles and websites. A scientist who surveyed the peer-reviewed safety literature for aspartame, Dr. Robert Walton, found that 74 of the 166 studies of its safety had received funding from NutraSweet-related industries. These all endorsed the sweetener’s safety, whereas of the remaining 92 independently-funded studies, 92% identified some problems and unique areas of concern. Moreover, physician Dr. H. J. Roberts has claimed that over 80% of the complaints received by the FDA about food additives related to aspartame, with complainants covering a huge range of symptoms including nausea, abdominal cramps, headaches, dizziness, visual disturbances, fatigue, diarrhea, memory loss, mood changes and even physical seizures. Other complaints allegedly associated with aspartame include depression, hair loss, muscular shooting pains and more dangerous illnesses like multiple sclerosis and cancer.
Some of these assertions have received some support from independent studies. Three randomized double-blind studies involving 200 adult migraine sufferers found that subjects in the aspartame-treated group showed more severe and more frequent migraine headaches than subjects who had received a placebo.
Scientific Refutations and Public Skepticism
The widely respected British Medical Journal, nonetheless, remains scientifically unpersuaded by many of the claims concerning the harmful effects of aspartame. It insists that careful analysis of the reliable evidence which is in the public domain from scientific study does not support the view that it is a dangerous substance. Bluntly stating that there is no link between aspartame consumption and cancer, hair loss, dementia or any of the other symptoms and diseases attributed to it on various websites, an editorial in the October 2, 2004 issue of the journal made reference to the extensive review conducted by the European Scientific Committee on Foods in 2002 This review surveyed over 500 reports encompassing clinical, behavioral and biochemical research and concluded that it was completely safe to consume a daily intake of aspartame not exceeding 40mg per kg of body weight. The only individuals who were at risk of developing adverse reactions were patients suffering from the genetic condition phenylketonuria (PKU). PKU sufferers have severe difficulties in metabolizing the molecule phenylalanine (a key component of aspartame) and were consequently advised to avoid consuming the product.
Passions clearly run high in this controversy and, notwithstanding the clear and firm advice given by the BMJ, FDA, and the European Scientific Committee on Foods, many remain unconvinced that artificial sweeteners like aspartame are safe for human consumption. It may be that scientists are regarded with more skepticism today, a social phenomenon which is likely to undermine the authority of their claims. Fear, also, can overwhelm rationality relatively easily – it is possible to intellectually appreciate that the risks associated with a particular product are minimal, so far as reliable evidence can ascertain, and yet be behaviorally governed by widespread social anxiety. This is likely to be a debate which will continue for many years to come, although it would appear that unless and until some new evidence is uncovered by researchers indicating a verifiable risk, aspartame will remain a stable for the foreseeable future.
You are what you eat. Visit: UltraFitnessDynamics
No comments:
Post a Comment