sdyer@bbncc5.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (07/29/85)
> Perhaps a product which is a mixture of cyclamates and some weak poison > could be approved. The purpose of the poison would be to inhibit cancerous > growths by gigadoses of the material as was done with saccahrin and/or > cycalamates. Huh? "Poisons" inhibit cancerous growth? Even if they did, you'd want to ingest them along with your morning coffee? I'll take mine black, thanks. By the way, I believe that the current opinion on cyclamates is that they were unjustly tarred in the early 70s, and that any weak carcinogenic effects were due to the co-administration of saccharin. How this ever got by the reviewers back then, I don't know. I have read that cyclamates are due to reappear and that Abbott, their original manufacturer, is preparing an application with the FDA. > By the way, studies have suggested a significant correlation of certain > types of cancer with levels of sugar consumption found in the general > population. No study has ever found a siginificant correlation between > consumption of aritficial sweeteners and any form of cancer. I don't know of any such study (references, please.) Some studies seem to show a correlation between fat intake and the chance of developing certain cancers, for example, colon cancer. You are correct about human populations and artificial sweeteners. The rat experiments still hold, however, and would indicate that saccharin is a weak carcinogen. -- /Steve Dyer {decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbnccv.ARPA