mwg@petrus.UUCP (07/11/85)
++ > ...concerns nutrasweet and pregnant women. I was told that a physician > at Emory has stated that nutrasweet may be harmfull to the unborn > baby. My question is twofold: 1. Why wasn't this studied earlier? There was a longish article last year in Common Cause magazine about nutrasweet. The claim was that nutrasweet was pushed through the FDA very quickly (and not without substantial pressure from some chemical company which makes almost all of it), with a minimum of studys and testing. They failed to show, conclusively, any harmful side-effects. This was related to the fact that they failed to show *anything* conclusively. The product was raced through approval to demonstrate the Reagan administration's desire not to tie up 'progress' with too much red tape. The main interviewee of the article was an MD (from Emory if I remember) who said that nutrasweet was the type of thing that plays with a class of vital bodily fluids which exist and function in extremely small quantities (hormones or neurotransmitters or some such). Therefore a small quantity of neutrosweet may affect your mood, disposition or other psychological and neural brain functions in subtle, difficult-to-measure ways. I avoid the stuff like the plague. If you would like, I can dig up the article and post quotes or send you a hard copy. (Send mail.) -Mark
preece@ccvaxa.UUCP (07/12/85)
> The claim was that nutrasweet was pushed through the FDA very quickly > (and not without substantial pressure from some chemical company which > makes almost all of it), with a minimum of studys and testing. ---------- I'm reasonably sure that aspartame was reported in _Science_ in 1973. Time to FDA approval is, therefore, about 11 years. This is a rush? -- scott preece ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece
caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) (07/13/85)
I vaguely recall reading something about a conflict of interest concerning the allegations concerning Nutrasweet. I also remember that it was the Sugar industry that sponsored the "research" that led to the banning of Cyclamates. Unfortunately, the laws are such that Sugar, which is a more damaging substance, is not regulated in any significant way as far as adulterating food with it is concerned. CAVEAT EMPTOR -- Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX ...!tektronix!reed!omen!caf CIS:70715,131 Omen Technology Inc 17505-V NW Sauvie Island Road Portland OR 97231 Voice: 503-621-3406 Modem: 503-621-3746 (Hit CR's for speed detect) Home of Professional-YAM, the most powerful COMM program for the IBM PC
claus@inuxd.UUCP (David Claus) (07/15/85)
> Unfortunately, the laws are such that Sugar, which is a more damaging > substance, is not regulated in any significant way as far as adulterating > food with it is concerned. Is there any proof to this allegation? As far as I have heard the only harm eating sugar has is an increase in dental caries. What else does sugar do to give it such a bad reputation. Dave Claus AT&T/Indy
caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) (07/16/85)
In article <780@inuxd.UUCP> claus@inuxd.UUCP (David Claus) writes: >> Unfortunately, the laws are such that Sugar, which is a more damaging >> substance, is not regulated in any significant way as far as adulterating >> food with it is concerned. > >Is there any proof to this allegation? As far as I have heard >the only harm eating sugar has is an increase in dental caries. > >What else does sugar do to give it such a bad reputation. One who makes comments such as the above desperately needs some information about sugar, and not from the sugar industry or its apologists. One of the best references is "Sweet and Dangerous" by Dr. John Yudkin Ph.D.. This book is available at most larger bookstores, and contains its own bibliography. -- Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX ...!tektronix!reed!omen!caf CIS:70715,131 Omen Technology Inc 17505-V NW Sauvie Island Road Portland OR 97231 Voice: 503-621-3406 Modem: 503-621-3746 (Hit CR's for speed detect) Home of Professional-YAM, the most powerful COMM program for the IBM PC
pamelam@orca.UUCP (Pamela Morton) (07/16/85)
> > Unfortunately, the laws are such that Sugar, which is a more damaging > > substance, is not regulated in any significant way as far as adulterating > > food with it is concerned. > > Is there any proof to this allegation? As far as I have heard > the only harm eating sugar has is an increase in dental caries. > > What else does sugar do to give it such a bad reputation. > > Dave Claus > AT&T/Indy I tend to agree with Dave Claus -- despite the effects that sugar may have on SOME people, dental caries are the most significant long-term health risk attributable to eating sugar. This month's Atlantic has an excellent article on the potentially harmful effects of sugar and nutrasweet. The article points out that PKU syndrome occurs only when there are two defective genes. Some 4 million Americans have one PKU gene, and they are considered "carriers". Pregnant women who are PKU carriers are more likely to be carrying a baby with full-blown PKU syndrome, and putting that baby at greater risk when they drink Nutrasweet. And the big problem is that most carriers have never been screened -- they don't know who they are. As I recall when my children were born (2 years ago, and 6 months ago), they were screened for PKU syndrome at birth, then again at the one-week checkup. In Oregon, the state actually does the test, and I think that the test is required by law. Our pediatrician just put a blood smear on a card that was mailed to the state department of health.
nessus@nsc.UUCP (Kchula-Rrit) (07/17/85)
> > Unfortunately, the laws are such that Sugar, which is a more damaging > > substance, is not regulated in any significant way as far as adulterating > > food with it is concerned. > > Is there any proof to this allegation? As far as I have heard > the only harm eating sugar has is an increase in dental caries. > > What else does sugar do to give it such a bad reputation. > > Dave Claus > AT&T/Indy 0. Long-term consumption can cause diabetes by "burning-out" the pancreas. I had a roommate do this to himself by pigging-out on sugar-filled junk food for YEARS. He now has to take insulin every day. 1. I have hypoglycemia, which I am given to understand means that my body is "too efficient" at metabolizing sugar(sucrose). This may have happened as a result of having been given sucrose as a child. My case is mild; i.e. I don't faint, but feel LOUSY about half an hour after eating anything with much sucrose in it. A friend of mine fainted in a supermarket. They wanted to call the ambulance, but I poured orange juice into her and had to fend everyone off. My friend was O.K. after resting for an hour or so. After becomming accustomed to doing without sucrose, I that I don't miss it at all. I find that fructose makes a good substitute without nearly so much of a "sugar-fit". 2. I have heard that [lots of] sucrose can have a bad effect on the nervous system but have no evidence to back it up. From the alter ego of-- Kchula-Rrit
sdyer@bbnccv.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (07/18/85)
> 0. Long-term consumption can cause diabetes by "burning-out" the pancreas. > I had a roommate do this to himself by pigging-out on sugar-filled junk > food for YEARS. He now has to take insulin every day. Hoo, boy, more "science". Like it or not, there is no evidence that eating "sugar-filled junk" has any deleterious effects other than dental caries (and in people who have a calorie excess, obesity.) Let's move this to net.religion, huh? -- /Steve Dyer {decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbnccv.ARPA
andrew@grkermi.UUCP (Andrew W. Rogers) (07/19/85)
In article <2991@nsc.UUCP> nessus@nsc.UUCP (Kchula-Rrit) writes: > 0. Long-term consumption can cause diabetes by "burning-out" the pancreas. > I had a roommate do this to himself by pigging-out on sugar-filled junk > food for YEARS. He now has to take insulin every day. Can you cite any medical research to back up this theory? If there's any correlation at all, it seems equally likely that the insulin deficiency caused the craving for "sugar-filled junk foods". Can you say "post hoc, ergo propter hoc"??? AWR
connolly@steinmetz.UUCP (C. Ian Connolly) (07/19/85)
When metabolized, Nutrasweet (aspartame) breaks down into (among other things) phenylalanine, which is an amino acid (biochemists correct me if I'm wrong). Most people can deal with phenylalanine, but there is a significant portion of the population (>10%?) which cannot. These are "phenylketonurics". There's even a warning on most things which use Nutrasweet which says: "Phenylketonurics: This product contains phenylalanine." Now, to most people, a phenylketonuric might as well be some kind of small amphibian. In any case, for such folk, phenylalanine can accumulate in the brain, leading to mood changes, lack of concentration, and even mental retardation. It has also been suspected of causing rashes, nausea, and headaches. An example: my sister teaches emotionally disturbed children in the Philadelphia area. She described one boy who was, up to a certain point, doing fine in school - he gradually lost his ability to concentrate and became a "problem" child, at which point he was enrolled in the Easter Seals program (where my sister works). After talking to his mother, they found out that she had recently started buying diet drinks. They agreed to take him off the diet drinks & see what happened. Within a week, he had improved tremendously. I shudder to think how popular this stuff is, and what it might be doing to a significant portion of the population! -- C. Ian Connolly, WA2IFI - USENET: ...edison!steinmetz!connolly , , ARPANET: connolly@ge-crd An rud a bhionn, bionn.
caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) (07/20/85)
In article <273@bbnccv.UUCP> sdyer@bbnccv.UUCP (Steve Dyer) writes: >Hoo, boy, more "science". Like it or not, there is no evidence that >eating "sugar-filled junk" has any deleterious effects other than dental >caries (and in people who have a calorie excess, obesity.) > >Let's move this to net.religion, huh? ... Just like there's no positive proof concerning the evils and causes of acid rain, lung cancer (cigarettes), mouth cancer (snuff), etc. A good starting text on the subject is the book "Sweet and Dangerous" by Dr John Yudkin, Professor of Physiology at Queen Elizabeth College of London University, etc. A quote therefrom: "If only a fraction of what is already known about the effects of sugar were to be revealed in relation to any other material used as a food additive, that material would promptly be banned." -- Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX ...!tektronix!reed!omen!caf CIS:70715,131 Omen Technology Inc 17505-V NW Sauvie Island Road Portland OR 97231 Voice: 503-621-3406 Modem: 503-621-3746 (Hit CR's for speed detect) Home of Professional-YAM, the most powerful COMM program for the IBM PC
sdyer@bbncc5.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (07/22/85)
> In article <273@bbnccv.UUCP> sdyer@bbnccv.UUCP (Steve Dyer) writes: > >Hoo, boy, more "science". Like it or not, there is no evidence that > >eating "sugar-filled junk" has any deleterious effects other than dental > >caries (and in people who have a calorie excess, obesity.) > > > >Let's move this to net.religion, huh? > > ... Just like there's no positive proof concerning the evils and causes of > acid rain, lung cancer (cigarettes), mouth cancer (snuff), etc. This is a silly debating tactic. It is worth noting that the medical profession has firmly supported the findings against tobacco for more than 20 years. The same is NOT true for sugar, and the reason is simple: the extravagant claims made against sugar simply don't materialize when subjected to scientific scrutiny. -- /Steve Dyer {decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbnccv.ARPA
ewj@hscfvax.UUCP (850039@P.Fuller) (07/23/85)
It may be true that there is NO scientific or medical evidence to support definite criticism of refined cane sugar. Yet it is difficult to deny the anecdotal evidence of many ex sugar addicts who claim to have had a remarkable changes once they discontinued eating any of this food/substance. It may be that some people have a strong sensitivity to highly refined carbohydrates (certainly many parents have observed this with their children of various ages) and that this is a personal issue not subject to empirical verification in control groups. In any case, those people who choose to avoid eating refined sugars should respect others who have no such predilection. And vice versa.
smh@rduxb.UUCP (henning) (07/23/85)
> Hoo, boy, more "science". Like it or not, there is no evidence that > eating "sugar-filled junk" has any deleterious effects other than dental > caries (and in people who have a calorie excess, obesity.) > > the extravagant claims made against sugar simply don't materialize when > subjected to scientific scrutiny. **** **** From the keys of Steve Henning, AT&T Bell Labs, Reading, PA rduxb!smh All I know is that if I eat a normal diet with sweats, I am diabetic. If I abstain from sugar my blood sugar is absolutely normal. I certainly cannot say that sugar caused this condition to occur, but it does occur.
sdyer@bbncc5.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (07/23/85)
> It may be that some people have a strong sensitivity to > highly refined carbohydrates (certainly many parents have observed > this with their children of various ages) and that this is a personal > issue not subject to empirical verification in control groups. In any > case, those people who choose to avoid eating refined sugars should > respect others who have no such predilection. And vice versa. Absolutely in agreement. A statement like "I felt bad when I ate lots of sugar" is outside of the realm of scientific verification. On the other hand, saying "sugar is poison, just look at how I felt" or some variant of this certainly can be tested. -- /Steve Dyer {decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbnccv.ARPA
sdyer@bbncc5.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (07/24/85)
> Most people can deal with phenylalanine, but there is > a significant portion of the population (>10%?) which cannot. These are > "phenylketonurics". There's even a warning on most things which use > Nutrasweet which says: > "Phenylketonurics: This product contains phenylalanine." From the Merck Manual, 12th ed, p. 1111: "Phenylketonuria (PKU) is transmitted by an autosomal recessive gene; it is caused by a deficiency of phenylalanine hydroxylase. The condition occurs in 7:100,000 births in the general population of the USA, with the incidence being considerably lower among Negroes and Askenazi Jews." 7/100000 is many times lower than >10%? (unless this is a kind of notation I've never seen before!) -- /Steve Dyer {decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbnccv.ARPA
caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) (07/25/85)
In article <227@bbncc5.UUCP> sdyer@bbncc5.UUCP (Steve Dyer) writes: >> In article <273@bbnccv.UUCP> sdyer@bbnccv.UUCP (Steve Dyer) writes: >> >Hoo, boy, more "science". Like it or not, there is no evidence that >> >eating "sugar-filled junk" has any deleterious effects other than dental >> >caries (and in people who have a calorie excess, obesity.) >> > >> >Let's move this to net.religion, huh? >> >> ... Just like there's no positive proof concerning the evils and causes of >> acid rain, lung cancer (cigarettes), mouth cancer (snuff), etc. > >This is a silly debating tactic. It is worth noting that the medical >profession has firmly supported the findings against tobacco for more >than 20 years. The same is NOT true for sugar, and the reason is simple: >the extravagant claims made against sugar simply don't materialize when >subjected to scientific scrutiny. Q.E.D. Smoking has been around since Sir Walter Raleigh (17th century), and the medical community hasn't come down hard on it until now. If it takes as long for the medical community to react to the wholesale suarar loading of our diet, we still have a few hundred years to wait for the word to propagate. If the "defenders" of sugar would take the bother to acknowledge the references I've given, their debating style wouldn't sound so much like the Tobacco Institute. -- Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX ...!tektronix!reed!omen!caf CIS:70715,131 Omen Technology Inc 17505-V NW Sauvie Island Road Portland OR 97231 Voice: 503-621-3406 Modem: 503-621-3746 (Hit CR's for speed detect) Home of Professional-YAM, the most powerful COMM program for the IBM PC
connolly@steinmetz.UUCP (C. Ian Connolly) (07/27/85)
> > a significant portion of the population (>10%?) which cannot. These are > it is caused by a deficiency of phenylalanine hydroxylase. The condition > occurs in 7:100,000 births in the general population of the USA, with > 7/100000 is many times lower than >10%? (unless this is a kind of What can I say? I got the figure out of Science... I might be confusing Phenylketonuria with a more general condition involving phenylalanine. I am positive that more than .007% of the people I know are affected by Nutrasweet-sweetened soft drinks, so I am much more inclined to believe the 10% figure. -- C. Ian Connolly, WA2IFI - USENET: ...edison!steinmetz!connolly , , ARPANET: connolly@ge-crd An rud a bhionn, bionn.
sck@elsie.UUCP (Steve Kaufman) (07/30/85)
In article <208@steinmetz.UUCP>, connolly@steinmetz.UUCP (C. Ian Connolly) writes: > I am positive that more than .007% of the > people I know are affected by Nutrasweet-sweetened soft drinks, > so I am much more inclined to believe the 10% figure. 3-digit precision based solely on anecdotal evidence? This sugar/aspartame/honey/etc stuff is getting more & more ridiculous every day! By the way, PKU is "a common biochemical disorder [as such things go], occurring with an incidence of about 1 in 15,000 births." [Nadler & Burton, 1980, "Genetics", p. 99 in _Fetal_&_Maternal_Medicine, Quilligan & Kretchmer, eds., Wiley] "Incidence estimates, including the milder forms, are as high as 1 in 7000 births in the US and Canada." [David Poskanzer, 1981 "Neurological Disorders", p. 281 in _Preventive_&_Community_Medicine_, Clark & MacMahon, eds., Little]
doon@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Harry W. Reed) (07/30/85)
In article <208@steinmetz.UUCP> connolly@steinmetz.UUCP (C. Ian Connolly) writes: >> > a significant portion of the population (>10%?) which cannot. These are > >> it is caused by a deficiency of phenylalanine hydroxylase. The condition >> occurs in 7:100,000 births in the general population of the USA, with > >> 7/100000 is many times lower than >10%? (unless this is a kind of > >What can I say? I got the figure out of Science... >I might be confusing Phenylketonuria with a more general condition >involving phenylalanine. I am positive that more than .007% of the ^^^^^^^^ >people I know are affected by Nutrasweet-sweetened soft drinks, What makes you so sure ?????