Artikel om sötningsmedel

[King Grub]

Artikel angående artificiella sötningsmedel för den som är intresserad.

Sugar Substitutes and Your Health. American Council on Science and Health, April 17, 2006. (http://www.acsh.org/docLib/20060417_sugar_web.pdf)

[n1tro]

tack så mycket, skriver ut nu kan inte läsa på skärmen får ont i ögonen...
mvh

[Kurash]

Känns skönt att få det bekräftat (igen?). Sjukt trött på alla som klagar på mitt aspartamintag.

[Princy]

Intressant! Detta ska läsas. :thumbup:

[emmak]

Känns skönt att få det bekräftat (igen?). Sjukt trött på alla som klagar på mitt aspartamintag.


Vad fick du bekräftat?

[Kurash]

Att det inte är farligt.

[tomccc]

There are no health-related reasons for choosing one sugar substitute over the others; all are safe, well tested products.
Grub har du planer på att ändra din inställning till sakkarin (och cyklamat?) eller tar du rapporten med en nypa salt?

[emmak]

Att det inte är farligt.


Ok, då förstår jag

Jag själv äter ganska mkt sötningsmedel också :)

[King Grub]

Grub har du planer på att ändra din inställning till sakkarin (och cyklamat?) eller tar du rapporten med en nypa salt?

Jag skulle aldrig stoppa sackarin eller cyklamat i mig. Det presenteras inget nytt här. Det här är ingen studie (och även om det gjorde det skulle jag inte börja äta värdelöst sötningsmedel), och sötningsmedel ökar risken för blåscancer. Varför, varför skulle jag vilja använda något som helt saknar värde och bara har negativ hälsopåverkan för lite söt smak (gäller även aspartam, osv)? Långtidsstudierna på apor som fått sackarin eller cyklamat (djuren fylldes med tumörer) ger mig heller ingen större längtan efter substanserna.

[aliquis]

För att sött är gott? :D

[Kurash]

sötningsmedel ökar risken för blåscancer.

Gäller det även aspartam? Jag tyckte det framgick att det inte fanns några som helst samband mellan cancer och aspartam (eller sukralos som jag också äste om).

[King Grub]

Nej, aspartam är inte utpekat i samband med blåscancer (hjärn- och lymfcancer om något, i djurförsök). Däremot är det svårt att precisera sötningsmedlens verkan.

Sackarin och cyklamat ger cancer hos djur.

Saccharin induces bladder cancer in rats, when fed in high doses.

Heavy artificial sweetener use leads to an increased relative risk of 1.3 for bladder cancer in humans. A more precise determination of the exact agents is not possible, because many artificial sweeteners are combined in current food products.

Annals of Oncology 2004 15(10):1460-1465

The National Toxicology Program's advisory panel on the federal government's Report on Carcinogens today recommended the continued listing of saccharin in the ninth edition of this official report of cancer-causing substances.

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Oct 31, 1997

I långtidsstudien (24 år lång) på sackarin och apor (J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998 Jan 7;90(1):19-25), drogs slutsatsen att sackarin inte ökade risken för blåscancer:

Although the dose of sodium saccharin administered to these monkeys was only five to 10 times the allowable daily intake for humans, the results provide additional evidence that sodium saccharin is without a carcinogenic effect on the primate urinary tract.

Det går att läsa i det allmänt tillgängliga abstraktet.

I fullängdsstudien hittar man följande beskrivning av själva resultaten:

When the 12 remaining saccharin-treated monkeys were euthanized in 1995, three of them had gross evidence of tumors. Histologic examination revealed a thyroid lymphoma in the first monkey,
leiomyoma of the uterus in the second monkey, and a papillary cystadenoma of the ovary and leiomyoma of the stomach in the third monkey. In addition to the tumors, three of the 12 monkeys had yocardial fibrosis and three had myocardial fatty degeneration. In seven ofthese 12 monkeys, fatty degeneration of the liver was noted, and
one animal had a liver cyst.

Kontrollgruppen, som inte fick sackarin, hade inga tumörer.

Av dessa resultat drogs slutsatsen, att sackarin inte ger cancer...

Vad gäller cyklamat gjordes också en lika lång studie på apor (Toxicol Sci 2000; 53: 33–39).

Slutsatsen, som man kan läsa i det allmänt tillgängliga abstraktet, lyder:

The findings of this study showed that long-term feeding of nonhuman primates with high doses of cyclamate did not affect the general health of most of these animals.

I fullängdsstudien hittar man beskrivningen av resultaten:

In 1994, two of the 24-year-old monkeys in the 500 mg/kg dose group were diagnosed with advanced cancer; a female (801J) with metastatic adenocarcinoma of the colon and a male (787J) with metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma. The third cancer case was a minute (3 x 3 mm) well-differentiated papillary adenocarcinoma of the prostate that was found during necropsy of an animal (774J) dosed at 100 mg/kg. Benign neoplasms were found during necropsy of two females in the 100 mg/kg cyclamate group and one in the 500 mg/kg group; one was an adenoma of the thyroid (791J) and two were leiomyomas of the uterus (772J and 801J). No neoplasms were detected in the control animals.

Återigen drogs slutsatsen, av dessa resultat, att cyklamat inte är skadligt...

[emmak]

Säkert en mycket dum fråga,, vad är blåscancer?

[Kurash]

I långtidsstudien (24 år lång) på sackarin och apor (J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998 Jan 7;90(1):19-25), drogs slutsatsen att sackarin inte ökade risk

Av dessa resultat drogs slutsatsen, att sackarin inte ger cancer...


Återigen drogs slutsatsen, av dessa resultat, att cyklamat inte är skadligt...

OK. Den usprungliga artikeln påstår att många av de studier som gjorts på sötningsmedel är felaktig utförda av oseriösa laboratorier, vilket du ytterligare påvisar med det inlägget. Vad ska man tro på egentligen? Antar att man måste läsa ALLA studier utförligt och skaffa sig en gen åsikt. Det känns som om det är starka ekonomiska krafter bakom varje studie.

Kanske lika bra att köpa några apor och en säck aspartam.

[King Grub]

Säkert en mycket dum fråga,, vad är blåscancer?

Cancer i urinblåsan.

[Sverker]

Kanske lika bra att köpa några apor och en säck aspartam.

Nu kan jag inte låta bli:D Detta är helt OT !

Köp små apor.
För att få aporna fogliga under försöksperioden måste du visa att du är alfa-hannen. Det kan krävas ett par brottningsmatcher innan du visat det är du som är ledaren:D .

[TylerDurden84]

Är inte de flesta suketter cyklamat eller sackarinbaserade? Jag har en blå Hermesetas-ask nu, kommer dock inte ihåg vad den innehåller...

[King Grub]

Är inte de flesta suketter cyklamat eller sackarinbaserade?

Jo. Bordsötningsmedel är vanligaste användningsområdena.

[blasr]

Nej, aspartam är inte utpekat i samband med blåscancer (hjärn- och lymfcancer om något, i djurförsök). Däremot är det svårt att precisera sötningsmedlens verkan.



Annals of Oncology 2004 15(10):1460-1465

Sackarin och cyklamat ger cancer hos djur.

I långtidsstudien (24 år lång) på sackarin och apor (J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998 Jan 7;90(1):19-25), drogs slutsatsen att sackarin inte ökade risken för blåscancer:



Det går att läsa i det allmänt tillgängliga abstraktet.

I fullängdsstudien hittar man följande beskrivning av själva resultaten:



Kontrollgruppen, som inte fick sackarin, hade inga tumörer.

Av dessa resultat drogs slutsatsen, att sackarin inte ger cancer...

Vad gäller cyklamat gjordes också en lika lång studie på apor (Toxicol Sci 2000; 53: 33–39).

Slutsatsen, som man kan läsa i det allmänt tillgängliga abstraktet, lyder:



I fullängdsstudien hittar man beskrivningen av resultaten:



Återigen drogs slutsatsen, av dessa resultat, att cyklamat inte är skadligt...


Är det jag som har missat någonting eller? Jag tycker att detta borde vara solklara bevis för att dessa sötningsmedel ger cancer. Eller, de kanske inte fungerar likadant hos människor?

[King Grub]

Är det jag som har missat någonting eller?

Nej. Bara att vad studieresultaten visar och vad som visas i abstrakten och vilka slutsatser som dras inte alltid är samma sak, varför man måste läsa hela fullängsstudierna och själv bilda sig en uppfattning, inte titta på sammanfattningarna i abstrakten.

Andra forskare har kommenterat slutsatserna som drogs.

The occurrence of 3 malignant and 3 benign tumors in cyclamate-exposed monkeys appears to be of considerable biological significance and must be taken as a serious warning toward the possible carcinogenicity of cyclamate.

Toxicological Sciences 57, 186 (2000)

Men dom "officiella" rekommendationerna och ADI-värdena världen över grundas på slutsatserna att det inte är cancerframkallande, trots att djuren som gavs sötningsmedel utvecklade tumörer, medan kontrolldjuren som inte fick sötningsmedel förblev tumörfria.

[Scratch89]

Så man ska helt enkelt undvika aspartam och alla andra sötningsmedel? Var det helt onödigt att Coca-Cola bytte ut aspartam mot sucralos, om detta nu också var hälsofarligt?

[King Grub]

Så man ska helt enkelt undvika aspartam och alla andra sötningsmedel? Var det helt onödigt att Coca-Cola bytte ut aspartam mot sucralos, om detta nu också var hälsofarligt?

Har du läst något alls av det som skrivits i tråden eller länkats till?

[Scratch89]

Har du läst något alls av det som skrivits i tråden eller länkats till?
Ja?

http://www.kolozzeum.com/kolozzeum/showpost.php?p=1603226&postcount=9

http://www.kolozzeum.com/kolozzeum/showpost.php?p=1603255&postcount=12

http://www.kolozzeum.com/kolozzeum/showpost.php?p=1604960&postcount=20


Det verkar som om du är emot sötningsmedel av olika slag, och att de faktiskt ger utslag på olika negativa aspekter. Men jag kanske missuppfattar allting som vanligt, jag har en tendens att alltid göra det. ;)

[King Grub]

Ja, du pratar plötsligt om sukralos och säger att det är farligt, och det vet jag inte var du läst. Det handlar ju om sackarin och cyklamat i inläggen du länkar till.

Och du behöver inte följa mina uppfattningar om saker och ting när det gäller att leva ditt liv.

[Scratch89]

Och du behöver inte följa mina uppfattningar om saker och ting när det gäller att leva ditt liv.
Det jag menar är att det inte är dina uppfattningar som spelar roll i det stora hela, utan snarare huruvida sötningsmedel är farligt eller ej.

Så, för att förkorta ner det till en kort fråga: Är det farligt?
Ena sidan säger nej, andra sidan säger ja.

[King Grub]

Man vet inte. Många experter är övertygade om att det är ofarligt. Många lika högt utbildade anser att det är skadligt. Det jag läst har fått mig att dra slutsatsen att det bara finns negativ påverkan. Hur skadligt det kan vara törs jag inte spekulera i, men eftersom det inte är något jag behöver, undviker jag det.

Och du blandar fortfarande ihop sukralos med... ja, jag vet inte. Sukralos har det inte varit tal om i tråden, förrän du dragit slutsatsen att det skulle vara hälsofarligt av någon du läst i den.

[Scratch89]

Ah, nu kom även jag till insikt, tack för tålmodigheten.
Att trycka i sig sötningsmedel om man inte behöver anser jag också vara dumdristigt, men jag väljer hellre en halvliter lightvariant än en halvliter sötat dryck (dvs 50 gram raffinerat socker), men det är väl endast min subjektiva åsikt.

Har du några studier på sukralos? Jag såg nu att jag hade blandat ihop sukralos med sakkarin.

[TylerDurden84]

Jo. Bordsötningsmedel är vanligaste användningsområdena.

Finns det något bordsötningsmedel (små "piller/tabletter") som säljs i Sverige utan cyklamat eller sackarin?

[Sverker]

http://www.canderel.se/SE/vara-produkter/overraskande-latt.asp

Aspartam. Vad ni nu tycker om det.

[TylerDurden84]

http://www.canderel.se/SE/vara-produkter/overraskande-latt.asp

Aspartam. Vad ni nu tycker om det.

Tackar!

Ingredienser: Aspartam, acesulfam-K, laktos, tvärbunden CMC, leucin, smaksättning.

Synd att det innehåller laktos bara, min mage gillar inte detta...

[King Grub]

Har du några studier på sukralos? Jag såg nu att jag hade blandat ihop sukralos med sakkarin.

The chronic toxicity and potential carcinogenicity of sucralose was evaluated by exposing Sprague-Dawley rats to dietary concentrations of this low-calorie sweetener both in utero and for up to 104 weeks following parturition. The rats assigned to the toxicity phase of this investigation were administered diets containing either 0% (control), 0.3% (3000 ppm), 1.0% (10,000 ppm) or 3.0% (30,000 ppm) sucralose. Each treatment group comprised 30 male and 30 female rats, of which 15 males and 15 females were sacrificed after 52 weeks of treatment. The surviving rats were killed following 78 weeks of sucralose administration. In the carcinogenicity phase of this investigation, groups of 50 male and 50 female rats were administered dietary sucralose at concentrations of 0% (control 1), 0% (control 2), 0.3%, 1.0% or 3.0% for 104 weeks. Evaluation of the data obtained from the two phases of this study showed that sucralose was not carcinogenic. Sucralose did not adversely affect the survival or clinical condition of the rats, and there were no toxicologically significant findings. Group mean body weight gain and food consumption were significantly decreased in a dose-dependent manner in sucralose-treated rats throughout the treatment period as compared to the controls. The primary effect of sucralose on food consumption, and secondarily on body weight gain, was established in later studies to be due to the fact that diets containing high concentrations of sucralose are unpalatable to rats. These subsequent studies established that the reduction of body weight gain seen in previous rat studies using sucralose in the diet at concentrations of 1% and below resulted from reduced food intake as a direct consequence of the unpalatable nature of sucralose. Similarly, at concentrations of 3% in the diet, it was shown that approximately 95% of the effect on body weight gain could be attributed to the reduction in food intake due to the reduced palatability of the diet, the remainder apparently due to a physiologic response to the high concentrations of non-digestible sucralose in the rats' diet. Complete toxicological evaluations of gavage studies with histopathological evaluations demonstrated that even at the 3% dietary level, toxicity was not responsible for the small body weight gain decrement. Gross and histopathologic examinations revealed that the administration of sucralose affected neither the types nor incidence of the tumours observed. The incidences of some non-neoplastic findings were statistically significantly increased in the sucralose treated groups relative to the controls. These included: renal pelvic epithelial hyperplasia in all female treatment groups, renal pelvic mineralization in females administered the intermediate or highest dietary concentrations of sucralose, adrenal cortical haemorrhagic degeneration in high-dose group female rats, and the histopathologic incidence of cataracts at necropsy in high-dose group male rats. The non-neoplastic findings that occurred were of no toxicological significance since they were either spontaneous findings commonly observed in aged rats of this strain or the physiological response to high dietary levels of a poorly absorbed compound.

Food Chem Toxicol. 2000;38 Suppl 2:S71-89. A combined chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study of sucralose in Sprague-Dawley rats.

The potential carcinogenicity of sucralose was evaluated by feeding groups of 52 male and 52 female CD-1 mice a diet containing sucralose at 0.3% (3000 ppm), 1.0% (10,000 ppm) or 3.0% (30,000 ppm) for 104 weeks. A group of 72 male and 72 female mice received diet without sucralose and served as controls. Week 1 achieved doses ranging from 543 to 5870mg/kg body weight/day in the low-dose males and high-dose females, respectively. Sucralose had no adverse effect on survival. No significant changes attributable to sucralose were found in the clinical condition or behaviour of the mice. Organ weights and the gross appearance of tissues were unaffected by treatment. The mean erythrocyte counts of females receiving the highest dietary concentration were slightly, but statistically significantly, lower than those of the controls after 104 weeks of treatment. Group mean body weight gain at the highest dietary concentration of sucralose was significantly less than that of the control in mice of both sexes. Food consumption, after correction for sucralose content, was lower for female mice, but not statistically significant. Water consumption for male mice receiving the highest dietary concentration was approximately 9% higher than that of the controls. There were statistically significant increases in the incidence of several non-neoplastic findings, but these were not considered to be related to sucralose administration. Treatment with sucralose did not increase the incidence of any tumour or influence the types of tumours observed. It was concluded that sucralose is not carcinogenic in CD-1 mice. The body weight gain and erythrocyte observations at the 3.0% dietary level were of limited biological significance as they were not accompanied by any histopathologic finding and had no impact on survival. The remaining dose levels were judged to have no effects.

Food Chem Toxicol. 2000;38 Suppl 2:S91-7. A carcinogenicity study of sucralose in the CD-1 mouse.

Certain chlorine-substituted sugars with chemical similarities to sucralose have been demonstrated previously to diminish or inhibit sperm glycolysis and fertility in the rat ([Ford]). In order to investigate this potential for sucralose, epididymal spermatozoa were recovered from rats exposed in vivo to oral doses of one of three of these substituted sugars: 6-chloroglucose (6-CG, 24mg/kg/day, positive control), sucralose (500mg/kg/day, over 300 times the expected human daily intake), or a 6'-substituted isomer of sucralose, trichloro de-oxy sucrose (TCDS, 100mg/kg/day, a potential trace impurity in commercial sucralose); distilled water served as the negative control. After incubation of the spermatozoa with D-[U-(14)C] glucose, measurements of (14)CO(2) and of ATP content showed no impairment of the glycolytic ability of spermatozoa in any of the groups except for a marked inhibition for those exposed to 6-CG, the positive control. In order to determine whether other parameters of reproduction and fertility could be affected, reproductive endpoints were examined following oral exposure of male and female rats to sucralose. Sucralose was fed in the diet at concentrations of 0, 0.3, 1.0 and 3.0% (approx. 100, 365 and 1150 times the EDI) to groups of 30 male and 30 female rats for 10 weeks prior to mating, and continued through two subsequent generations until weaning of the F(2) pups. Two litters were produced per generation. Food consumption and weight gain in the F(0) and F(1) generations were depressed in all sucralose groups before mating and in all four litters prior to weaning. The decrease in initial average weight for newborn pups probably reflects the increased litter sizes noted for sucralose-treated groups and the reduced food consumption of the dams during gestation and lactation. The latter is a result primarily of the unpalatability of sucralose to rats ([McNeil,]). Caecal enlargement (a common animal response to large doses of indigestible material) occurred in both the F(0) and F(1) parents. Increased kidney weights, possibly associated with increased water intake, were observed primarily among animals receiving 3% sucralose (no renal histopathology has been detected). Decreased thymus weights occurred in F(1) males and in both F(1) and F(2) females at the 3% level. Subsequent studies specifically designed to investigate the potential for adverse immune system effects of sucralose ([McNeil,]) showed no adverse effects. These findings are consistent with investigations by others showing that decreases in thymus weights occur in young rats in response to stressful conditions associated with reductions in weight gain. All reproductive indices (oestrous cycles, mating behaviour, fertility, gestation, maternal and foetal viability, foetal development, parturition, pup maturation and lactation) were comparable between the control and sucralose-treated groups. We conclude from these results that sucralose has no effect on sperm glycolysis or on male or female reproductive performance in the rat.

Food Chem Toxicol. 2000;38 Suppl 2:S19-29. Sucralose: lack of effects on sperm glycolysis and reproduction in the rat.

[King Grub]

Two tolerance studies were conducted in healthy human adult volunteers. The first study was an ascending dose study conducted in eight subjects, in which sucralose was administered at doses of 1, 2. 5, 5 and 10mg/kg at 48-hour intervals and followed by daily dosing at 2mg/kg for 3 days and 5mg/kg for 4 days. In the second study, subjects consumed either sucralose (n=77) or fructose (50g/day) (n=31) twice daily in single blind fashion. Sucralose dosage levels were 125mg/day for weeks 1-3, 250mg/day during weeks 4-7, and 500mg/day during weeks 8-12. No adverse experiences or clinically detectable effects were attributable to sucralose in either study. Similarly, haematology, serum biochemistry, urinalysis and EKG tracings were unaffected by sucralose administration. In the 13-week study, serial slit lamp ophthalmologic examination performed in a random subset of the study groups revealed no changes. Fasting and 2-hour post-dosing blood sucralose concentrations obtained daily during week 12 of the study revealed no rising trend for blood sucralose. Sucralose was well tolerated by human volunteers in single doses up to 10mg/kg/day and repeated doses increasing to 5mg/kg/day for 13 weeks. Based on these studies and the extensive animal safety database, there is no indication that adverse effects on human health would occur from frequent or long-term exposure to sucralose at the maximum anticipated levels of intake.

Food Chem Toxicol. 2000;38 Suppl 2:S123-9. Repeated dose study of sucralose tolerance in human subjects.

The toxicity of sucralose has been evaluated in acute and subchronic toxicity studies. Acute oral toxicity studies in male and female mice and male rats documented no deaths or treatment-related signs at doses of 16g/kg for mice and 10g/kg for rats. Sucralose was administered to male and female rats for 4 and 8 weeks at dietary concentrations of 1.0, 2.5 or 5.0%. Achieved dose ranges (mg/kg/day) for the respective dietary levels were 737-1287, 1865-3218 and 2794-6406. There were no toxicologically significant effects observed at the 1.0% or 2.5% dietary levels. However, decreases in food consumption, body weight gain and selected organ weights and ratios as well as splenic and thymic histopathologic changes occurred in rats administered 5.0% for 4 or 8 weeks. A gavage study wherein doses of 0, 750, 1500 or 3000mg/kg/day were administered to male and female rats for 26 weeks investigated further the observations from the dietary study as well as general subchronic toxicity. The gavage study documented no sucralose-related toxicity. These results implicate the reduced palatability and digestibility of diets containing high concentrations of sucralose seen in the diet study as the cause for the decreased food consumption and other accompanying alterations. Dose selection for chronic toxicity studies in rats took into consideration the effect of high concentrations of sucralose on digestion and food consumption and the limitations that would be imposed on subsequent studies. In male and female dogs, no sucralose-related adverse effects were observed following the dietary administration of 0.3, 1.0 or 3.0% for 12 months achieving doses of approximately 90, 300 and 900mg/kg/day respectively. These studies establish that sucralose is non-toxic in rodents following acute oral administration. The rat no-observed-adverse-effect level ranged between 2.5 and 5.0% following subchronic dietary administration. A 3.0% dietary concentration equivalent to a dose of 900mg/kg/day produced no adverse effects in beagle dogs when fed for 12 months.

Food Chem Toxicol. 2000;38 Suppl 2:S53-69 Acute and subchronic toxicity of sucralose.

The teratogenic potential of sucralose was examined following gavage administration to pregnant rats and rabbits during organogenesis. Groups of 20 mated rats were dosed on days 6-15 of gestation inclusive at 500, 1000 or 2000mg/kg/day; groups of 16 to 18 inseminated rabbits were dosed on days 6 to 19 of gestation inclusive at 175, 350 or 700mg/kg/day following preliminary studies at higher doses. Concurrent control groups received vehicle alone. Rats were killed on day 21 and rabbits on day 29 of gestation. Foetuses were evaluated at necropsy and after processing for possible soft tissue and skeletal alterations. There was no evidence of teratogenicity for either species. The only observed response to treatment in rats was a slight increase in water intake. Some adult rabbits receiving 700mg/kg/day exhibited marked gastrointestinal disturbance, also seen at higher doses in preliminary studies. Gastrointestinal effects such as these occur non-specifically in response to high doses of poorly absorbed compounds, and in the present study were considered to be responsible for two maternal deaths and four abortions. Full evaluation of rabbit foetuses in the main study (up to 700mg/kg/day) and necropsy of foetuses in a preliminary study with pregnant animals (up to 1000mg/kg/day) showed no evidence of adverse foetal response to sucralose. These teratology studies in both pregnant rodent and non-rodent animal models demonstrate that maternal consumption of high levels of sucralose during the period of organogenesis has no effect on normal foetal development in the rat or rabbit.

Food Chem Toxicol. 2000;38 Suppl 2:S43-52. Sucralose: assessment of teratogenic potential in the rat and the rabbit.

[Sverker]

Tackar!

Ingredienser: Aspartam, acesulfam-K, laktos, tvärbunden CMC, leucin, smaksättning.

Synd att det innehåller laktos bara, min mage gillar inte detta...

Kommer laktosen som tredje ingrediens efter aspartam och acesulfam så är det försvinnande lite. Dina tarmbakterier kommer att ta hand om laktosen innan du ens hinner blinka.



Alltså inga problem.