Top Pharma-Brand of Children’s Vitamins Contains Aspartame, GMOs and Other Hazardous Chemicals

The #1 Children’s Vitamin Brand in the US contains ingredients that most parents would never intentionally expose their children to, so why aren’t more opting for healthier alternatives?

Kids vitamins are supposed to be healthy, right? Well then, what’s going on with Flintstones Vitamins, which proudly claims to be “Pediatricians’ #1 Choice”?  Produced by the global pharmaceutical corporation Bayer, this wildly successful brand features a shocking list of unhealthy ingredients, including:

• Aspartame


• Cupric Oxide


• Coal tar artificial coloring agents (FD&C Blue #2, Red #40, Yellow #6)


• Zinc Oxide


• Sorbitol


• Ferrous Fumarate


• Hydrogenated Oil (Soybean)


• GMO Corn starch

On Bayer Health Science’s Flintstones product page designed for healthcare professionals they lead into the product description with the following tidbit of information:

82% of kids aren’t eating all of their veggies¹. Without enough vegetables, kids may not be getting all of the nutrients they need.

References: 1. Lorson BA, Melgar-Quinonez HR, Taylor CA. Correlates of fruit and vegetable intakes in US children. J Am Diet Assoc. 2009;109(3):474-478.

The implication? That Flintstones vitamins somehow fill this nutritional void. But let’s look a little closer at some of these presumably healthy ingredients….

ASPARTAME

Aspartame is a synthetic combination of the amino acids aspartic acid and l-phenylalanine, and is known to convert into highly toxic methanol and formaldehyde in the body.  Aspartame has been linked to over 40 adverse health effects in the biomedical literature, and has been shown to exhibit both neurotoxicity and carcinogenicity [1]  What business does a chemical like this have doing in a children’s vitamin, especially when non-toxic, non-synthetic non-nutritive sweeteners like stevia already exist?

CUPRIC OXIDE

Next, let’s look closer at Cupric Oxide, 2mg of which is included in each serving of Flinstone’s Complete chewable vitamins as a presumably  ‘nutritional’ source of ‘copper,’ supplying “100% of the Daily Value  (Ages 4+), according to Flintstones Vitamins Web site’s Nutritional Info.[2]

But what is Cupric Oxide? A nutrient or a chemical?

According to the European Union’s Dangerous Substance Directive, one of the main EU laws concerning chemical safety, Cupric Oxide is listed as a Hazardous substance, classified as both  “Harmful (XN)” and “Dangerous for the environment” (N).  Consider that it has industrial applications as a pigment in ceramics, and as a chemical in the production of rayon fabric and dry cell batteries. In may be technically correct to call it a mineral, but should it be listed as a nutrient in a children’s vitamin? We think not.

COAL TAR ARTIFICIAL COLORING AGENTS

A well-known side effect of using synthetic dyes is attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. For direct access to study abstracts on this topic view our Food Coloring research page.  There is also indication that the neurotoxicity of artificial food coloring agents increase when combined with aspartame,[3] making the combination of ingredients in Flintstones even more concerning.

ZINC OXIDE

Each serving of Flinstones Complete Chewable vitamins contain 12 mg of zinc oxide, which the manufacturer claims delivers 75% of the Daily Value to children 2  & 3 years of age.  Widely used as a sun protection factor (SPF) in sunscreens, The EU’s Dangerous Substance Directive classifies it as an environmental Hazard, “Dangerous for the environment (N).”  How it can be dangerous to the environment, but not for humans ingesting it, escapes me.  One thing is for sure, if one is to ingest supplemental zinc, or market it for use by children, it makes much more sense using a form that is organically bound (i.e. ‘chelated’) to an amino acid like glycine, as it will be more bioavailable and less toxic.

SORBITOL

Sorbitol is a synthetic sugar substitute which is classified as a sugar alcohol. It can be argued that it has no place in the human diet, much less in a child’s. The ingestion of higher amounts have been linked to gastrointestinal disturbances from abdominal pain to more serious conditions such as irritable bowel syndrome.[4]

FERROUS FUMARATE

The one clear warning on the Flinstone’s Web site concerns this chemical. While it is impossible to die from consuming iron from food, e.g. spinach, ferrous fumarate is an industrial mineral and not found in nature as food. In fact, ferrous fumarate is so toxic that accidental overdose of products containing this form is “a leading cause of fatal poisoning in children under 6.” The manufacturer further warns:

Keep this product out of reach of children. In case of accidental overdose, call a doctor or poison control center immediately.

HYDROGENATED SOYBEAN OIL

Finding hydrogenated oil in anything marketed to children is absolutely unacceptable. These semi-synthetic fatty acids incorporate into our tissues and have been linked to over a dozen adverse health effects, from coronary artery disease to cancer, violent behavior to fatty liver disease.[5]

GMO CORN STARCH

While it can be argued that the amount of GMO corn starch in this product is negligible, even irrelevant, we disagree. It is important to hold accountable brands that refuse to label their products honestly, especially when they contain ingredients that have been produced through genetic modification. The ‘vitamin C’ listed as ascorbic acid in Flintstones is likely also produced from GMO corn. Let’s remember that Bayer’s Ag-biotech division, Bayer CropScience, poured $381,600 of cash into defeating the proposition 37 GMO labeling bill in California. Parents have a right to protect their children against the well-known dangers of genetically modified foods and the agrichemicals that contaminate them, don’t they? GMO corn starch is GMO, plain and simple. We’d appreciate it if Bayer would label their “vitamins” accordingly.

In summary, Bayer’s Flintstone’s vitamin brand is far from a natural product, and the consumer should be aware of the unintended, adverse health effects that may occur as a result of using it.

---

Resources

• [1] GreenMedInfo.com, Adverse Health Effects of Aspartame

• [2] FlinstonesVitamins.com, FLINSTONES Complete Chewable, Nutritional Info Overview

• [3] Karen Lau, W Graham McLean, Dominic P Williams, C Vyvyan Howard. Synergistic interactions between commonly used food additives in a developmental neurotoxicity test. Toxicol Sci. 2006 Mar;90(1):178-87. Epub 2005 Dec 13. PMID: 16352620

• [4] GreenMedInfo.com, Sorbitol’s Adverse Health Effects

• [5] GreenMedInfo.com, Health Effects of Hydrogenated Oil

 

©  February 12, 2o18 GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here http://www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter.

 

The post Top Pharma-Brand of Children’s Vitamins Contains Aspartame, GMOs and Other Hazardous Chemicals appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Pepsi Co. Swaps Aspartame For Sucralose: Is It Worth It?

Soda is one of the most popular beverages in the developed world, and many people are addicted to its sweet taste and fizzy texture. Not only does soda provide calories, these calories come in the form of refined sugar, namely mercury-laden high fructose corn syrup. Diet sodas are supposed to lessen the health effects of regular soda consumption and is often seen as a product that can be consumed in limitless quantities with very little worry. Research is showing, however, that this is not the case. ^[1] Even diet sodas, typically sweetened with aspartame, also correlate with increased obesity trends in those who consume them on a regular basis. Pepsi has recently launched a move that will replace aspartame with sucralose (Splenda), citing consumer demand regarding the supposed health dangers of aspartame.

What Pepsi Doesn’t Understand About Splenda

Aspartame has been linked to serious health consequences for years, and these consequences are only now being made known to the public. Due to public outcry over the use of aspartame in diet foods, Pepsi has decided to replace the artificial sweetener with sucralose, a heavily-marketed artificial sweetener that many mistake for natural. ^[2] While sucralose does start with sugar, it goes through an unnatural process to make it free from calories and 300 to 1,000 times as sweet as pure table sugar. Simply swapping out an artificial sweetener for another one doesn’t seem to be doing much good, because even sucralose has a host of negative health effects associated with its consumption. ^[3]

Diet soda was originally created to combat the effects that high-sugary beverages promote, like obesity, diabetes, and other clinical symptoms of metabolic syndrome. ^[4] Soda manufacturers, who recognized the issue associated with refined sugar, quickly came out with an alternative to their original recipe to appease health-conscious consumers and protect their bottom line. Not only did they attract individuals watching their waistline, their expanded product line undoubtedly increased sales. Soda manufacturers aren’t 100% concerned for public health; rather, they’re merely trying to find ways to appeal to consumer demand as a means to protect their overall profit. While there may be noble intentions from some people in the industry, the majority isn’t geared toward improving overall health.

The Best Alternatives to Artificial Sweeteners

You’re probably already aware that you shouldn’t be consuming refined sugar in any amount. Artificial sweeteners may be even worse, since they’re chemical in natural and drive weight gain much more quickly than pure sugar. Stevia is perhaps the best natural alternative to artificial sweeteners, and is being increasingly used in natural and organic “diet” foods. The natural green powdered leaf is probably the least processed form of the plant you can get, but it’s not as popular as stevia extract. Sugar alcohols like maltitol, erythritol, and xylitol are also excellent alternatives to sugar; however, they do provide calories and can be aggravating to the digestive system, particularly for those with digestive issues.

References:

1. Qing Yang. Gain weight by “going diet?” Artificial sweeteners and the neurobiology of sugar cravings. Yale J Biol Med. 2010 Jun; 83(2): 101-108.


2. Jackie Wattles. Diet Pepsi replaces aspartame with… CNN Money.


3. Schiffman SS, Rother KI. Sucralose, a synthetic organochlorine sweetner: overview of biological issues. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev. 2013;16(7):399-451. doi: 10.1080/10937404.2013.842523.


4. Swithers SE. Artificial sweeteners produce the counterintuitive effect of inducing metabolic derangements. Trends Endocrinol Metab. 2013 Sep;24(9):431-41. doi: 10.1016/j.tem.2013.05.005.

The post Pepsi Co. Swaps Aspartame For Sucralose: Is It Worth It? appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Splenda Contaminates 65% Of Breastmilk Sampled, Gov. Study Finds

A concerning study finds that most of the breast milk samples tested contained artificial sweeteners. Why has this never been discovered until now and what are the implications to our most vulnerable populations? 

An article soon to be published in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health on the presence of synthetic sweeteners in breast milk is bound to upset the apple cart when it comes to assessing the toxicological risk of these chemicals to breastfed infants.

In previous articles we have reported extensively on the dangers of artificial sweeteners, especially aspartame and sucralose (aka Splenda), whose presence in tens of thousands of consumer products make exposure to them commonplace.  Despite their present day low-risk regulatory status, we have found highly concerning research that these compounds contribute to a wide range of health conditions such as:

• Brain Damage


• Obesity and Diabetes


• Weight Gain/Overweight


• Addiction

Even more concerning, when Splenda is heated at temperatures that occur in baking applications it produces dioxin, one of the most deadly chemicals known to man. This is a finding that has received almost not attention outside a few scientific studies that we reported on in an article you can familiarize yourself with here: Sucralose’s (Splenda) Harms Vastly Underestimated: Baking Releases Dioxin.

The new study titled, “Nonnutritive Sweeteners in Breast Milk“, was conducted by researchers from the National Institute for Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health , Bethesda , Maryland , USA. The study abstract is available to read ahead of the study’s full publication later this month:

Nonnutritive Sweeteners in Breast Milk.

J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2015 Aug 12:1-4. [Epub ahead of print]

Sylvetsky AC¹, Gardner AL, Bauman V, Blau JE, Martin Garraffo H, Walter PJ, Rother KI.

Abstract

Nonnutritive sweeteners (NNS), including saccharin, sucralose, aspartame, and acesulfame-potassium, are commonly consumed in the general population, and all except for saccharin are considered safe for use during pregnancy and lactation. Sucralose (Splenda) currently holds the majority of the NNS market share and is often combined with acesulfame-potassium in a wide variety of foods and beverages. To date, saccharin is the only NNS reported to be found in human breast milk after maternal consumption, while there is no apparent information on the other NNS. Breast milk samples were collected from 20 lactating volunteers, irrespective of their habitual NNS intake. Saccharin, sucralose, and acesulfame-potassium were present in 65% of participants’ milk samples, whereas aspartame was not detected. These data indicate that NNS are frequently ingested by nursing infants, and thus prospective clinical studies are necessary to determine whether early NNS exposure via breast milk may have clinical implications.

This groundbreaking study has found for the first time that sucralose and acesulfame-potassium survive maternal metabolism and enter into breast milk in the majority of the breast milk samples tested (65%).  As is the case for many chemicals released into the human food supply, adequate proof of the safety of these compounds in infants is not only not available, but unethical to perform in human subjects. This is one justification for the use of surrogate risk assessments using animals, such as the animal LD50 model, whereby a chemical is tested by determining the amount needed to kill 50% of rodents within a relatively short time frame (so-called “acute toxicity”), and then deducing from that data an “acceptable level of harm” to humans primarily by adjusting for body weight differences between rodents and humans. This system, of course, is extremely primitive, and does not account for low-dose, chronic exposures; nor does it account for the synergistic toxicities of multiple exposures occurring simultaneously in real-world situations, such as the study above.

Clearly, if these artificial sweeteners are being passed directly to newborns through breast milk, and there is no assurance of their safety, an immediate halt to their use by those wishing to conceive, are pregnant, or breastfeeding should be initiated by regulators. Anything less than obeisance to the precautionary principle could be considered a violation of informed consent, and evidence o culpability shared by manufacturers and regulators to for the harm done to exposed populations.

This new study will represent something of a litmus test as far as determining how effectively the media will keep this information buried or will report accurately on it once it is released. Given the high gravitas government source of the research, and the profound implications it has to the health of our most susceptible population: newborns and infants, if it goes un- or under-reported it is our job to make sure it gets widespread exposure. Therefore please share this information and relevant links above with relevant parties and stakeholders who should be aware of the true dangers associated with the use of artificial sweeteners.

The post Splenda Contaminates 65% Of Breastmilk Sampled, Gov. Study Finds appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Artificial Sweetener Use Among Kids Rose 200% in Less than 15 Years

Artificial sweetener use increased 200% among children and 54% among children from 1999 to 2012. Health experts are especially concerned about the spike in use among kids because the scientific community still doesn’t know the full health repercussions of long-term, low-cal sweetener use. [1]

According to the study published in the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, in 1999, only 8.7% of children reported consuming artificial sweeteners, but that number had jumped to 25.1% by 2012.

Lead study author Dr. Allison Sylvetsky, assistant professor of exercise and nutrition sciences at the George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health, said:

“The findings are important, especially for children, because some studies suggest a link between low-calorie sweeteners and obesity, diabetes and other health issues.” [1]

Learning the Bitter Truth About Fake Sweeteners

For the study, researchers looked at data on some 17,000 adult men, women, and children that came from the National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey (NHANES) from 2009-2012, and compared their analysis to a previous study that used data from 1999-2008. Of the data, researchers specifically reviewed results from the 2 dietary interviews in which people reported what they ate or drank during the 24-hour period prior.

The team found that 25.1% of children and 41.4% of adults reported consuming low-calorie sweeteners. The majority of low-cal sweetener users reported using them once daily (80% of children and 52% of adults), and how often participants consumed the sweeteners increased with body weight in adults. Seventeen percent of adults in the study consumed artificial sweeteners 3 or more times a day.

Furthermore, the study showed that children as young as 2 had consumed artificial sweeteners in foods and beverages, representing 1 in 4 children involved.

Why the Increase?

The study authors point to obesity-prevention campaigns aimed at reducing sugar intake, increased availability of artificial sweeteners, increasingly inexpensive products, and/or increased prevalence of Type 2 diabetes as the reason for the sharp increase in low-calorie sweetener use. [2]

Sylvetsky said:

“While we anticipated an increase, the magnitude of the increase was much larger than we had anticipated, particularly in kids.
It is not surprising that low-calorie sweetener consumption continues to increase, though. … There has been a lot of pressure put on the food and beverage industry to reformulate, which has led to more lower-sugar, low-calorie sweetener containing products appearing on the market.” [3]

Rachel Hicks, a spokeswoman for the American Beverage Association, said in a statement:

“Decades of scientific research, as well as regulatory agencies around the globe, have repeatedly reaffirmed the safety of low- and no-calorie sweeteners as part of the diet. And the science is clear that because they have few, if any, calories these sweeteners can be an effective tool for weight loss or as part of a weight management plan.”

Do Artificial Sweeteners Provide Any Benefit?

However, another study published in PLOS Medicine suggests there is a lack of evidence to support the role of artificial sweeteners in preventing weight gain.

Sylvetsky said that it’s not clear “how low-calorie sweeteners may influence appetite, weight management, and risk of chronic diseases such as diabetes,” though the products are believed to be safe in toxicology.

Are they really safe, though?

In recent years, research has emerged showing that some of the most popular low-calorie sweeteners may cause negative health effects. For example, an 11-year study showed that consuming 2 or more diet drinks is associated with a 2-fold increased risk of kidney function decline in women.

A study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition revealed that, despite safety reports of aspartame, the sweetener is still associated with health concerns such as non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myelomas, and leukemia, though the researchers admitted that “cancer risk in individuals who consume regular soda do not permit the ruling out of chance as an explanation.”

Source: Mercola.com

Splenda, or sucralose, has become a popular alternative to aspartame and saccharine because it is made from sugar. However, a 2013 study showed that sucralose caused cancerous tumors in mice. The researchers behind that study also acknowledged that sucralose is able to alter gut microbes.

If you absolutely need to sweeten a food or drink, use organic, “raw” sugar.

Sources:

[1] Fox News

[2] New York Daily News

[3]CNN

Mercola

---

---

“Diet” Artificial Sweeteners may Actually Expand Your Waistline

In a new analysis of studies involving more than 406,000 patients, researchers found that people who substitute artificial sweeteners for sugar – even the natural kinds – actually gained weight, instead of losing it. [1]

Published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, the study looked at the long-term effects of artificial sweeteners on heart health, weight, stroke incidence, and blood pressure levels.

The researchers wrote:

“We found that consumption of nonnutritive sweeteners was associated with modest long-term weight gain in observational studies.”

Artificial sweeteners were once touted by doctors as healthy for diabetics who didn’t want to give up sweets, but who also realized that continuing to eat sugar could cause serious complications or death. But the analysis showed that the consumption of artificial sweeteners may increase a person’s risk for developing the disease, and other potentially serious health conditions.

The team says:

“Our results also extend previous meta-analyses that showed higher risks of type 2 diabetes and hypertension with regular consumption.”

Some of the Findings

For the analysis, researchers reviewed 30 studies that followed groups of people that used artificial sweeteners, including aspartame (Equal), sucralose (Splenda), and stevioside (Stevia). The studies involved in the review including longer, larger studies with follow-ups every 4-9 years. Study participants not only gained weight using artificial sweeteners, they also had higher risks of obesity, high blood pressure, and stroke.

Read: The Dangers of Sucralose/Splenda Revealed Again by Extensive New Review

Specifically, the observational studies noted a small increase in body mass index (BMI) associated with consumption of artificial sweeteners, a 14% greater chance of developing Type 2 diabetes for those who consumed the most artificial sweeteners, and a 32% higher risk of cardiovascular events for those who ate the most, compared to those who ate the least. [2]

Those who had hoped to lose weight in the short-term were met with disappointment; participants in the 7 shorter randomized, controlled studies reviewed in the analysis didn’t show consistent weight-loss after 6 months.

Lead author Meghan Azad, of the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Canada, said:

“From all that research, there was no consistent evidence of a long-term benefit from the sweetener, but there was evidence for weight gain and increased risks of other cardiometabolic outcomes.” [2]

Tricked into Poor Health

The fact that sugar causes obesity and a host of other health problems is fairly common knowledge these days, but the reason why artificial sweeteners appear to do the same things is less understood. To put it in simple terms, artificial sweeteners “trick” the brain into thinking the body is consuming real sugar.

See, artificial sweeteners are chemically different than sugar. When you taste something containing artificial sweeteners, receptors are activated on the tongue that lets the brain know you are eating or drinking something sweet. [3]

When you eat something sweet, the brain’s reward center is activated by a surge of dopamine. Leptin, an appetite-regulating hormone, is also released. When you eat something with calories, leptin eventually signals to your brain that you are full.

However, when you eat something sweet but with no calories, your brain’s pleasure pathway still gets activated, but the lack of calories means there is nothing to shut it off.

Watch: How Diet Sodas Mess With Your Brain (Video)

In turn, your body signals that it needs more calories, which results in carb cravings. In the end, you wind up eating more than you should, taking in more calories than you should, and those carbohydrates get converted into sugar.

Artificial sweeteners have been shown to alter gut microbes, some of which have been linked to obesity.

Furthermore, researchers have discovered that artificial sweeteners alter metabolic pathways linked to metabolic disease.

Stevia is considered the “safest” artificial sweetener, because it is natural. However, if you have high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diabetes, or extra weight, then you have insulin sensitivity issues, and you should probably avoid artificial sweeteners entirely.

According to a study published earlier in 2017, 1/4 of U.S. children and 41% of American adults consume artificial sweeteners, most of them at least once per day. Though people likely consume more artificial sweeteners than they realize, since they’re in everything from granola bars to yogurt. [2]

Your safest bet is to learn to enjoy your coffee black, and choose foods free of sugar and artificial sweeteners.

Easier said than done, I know, but you can do it!

Sources:

[1] ABC News

[2] NPR

[3] Mercola.com

---

---

About Mike Barrett:
	Mike is the co-founder, editor, and researcher behind Natural Society. Studying the work of top natural health activists, and writing special reports for top 10 alternative health websites, Mike has written hundreds of articles and pages on how to obtain optimum wellness through natural health.

Three Artificial Sweeteners You Should Look Out For

Artificial sweeteners are everywhere, and if you’re like me, you avoid them at all costs. Things like aspartame, sucralose, and saccharin can be found in a variety of processed diet foods; however, even some foods you wouldn’t expect contain these chemicals. Whether you’re knowingly poisoning yourself with these toxins or not, you must know that their presence in your diet, regardless of the amount, have no purpose for your body. Not eliminating them is sometimes the only obstacle many people have toward achieving an ideal state of health.

The Dangers of Artificial Sweeteners

Avoiding artificial sweeteners should already be a no-brainer for you, especially if you are a consistent reader of this blog. Here are the top three sweeteners you should look out for:

1. Why Saccharin Is Not Your Friend

Saccharin was the first artificial sweetener and is still a popular sugar substitute used by many people across the world. Fortunately, it’s not as popular in diet foods as it used to be. You will typically find saccharin in pink packets of artificial sweetener, like Sweet‘N Low. Saccharin can encourage potential allergic reactions in some people, including headaches, breathing difficulties, skin eruptions, and diarrhea. ^[1] There are also studies indicating saccharin in cancer development; although, these studies are dated and do not appear in any relevant, modern literature.

2. The Ever-Popular Sucralose

Sucralose, or commonly known by its trade name “Splenda,” is another commonly-used artificial sweetener. This sweetener, along with aspartame, is often used in diet sodas and other weight loss and diabetic-friendly foods. While it is true that Sucralose starts off with natural sugar as the starting material, it is chlorinated and goes through a very unnatural process during production. Supposedly, Sucralose is not digested and travels through the GI tract unchanged; however, a recent analysis shows the exact opposite. ^[2] There is some research also showing that Sucralose affects glucose control in diabetics and prediabetics, something that nonnutritive sweeteners are designed to avoid. ^[3] Considering that Sucralose was discovered while testing for a new insecticide (at least that’s what’s been widely reported), why would we want to ingest this at any amount?

3. How Aspartame Destroys Brain Cells

Aspartate and glutamate are found in aspartame and behave as neurotransmitters in the brain. Having an excess of these neurotransmitters kills certain neurons by allowing the inundation of calcium. This influx provokes excessive amounts of free radicals which kill the cells. ^[4] The sweetener also contains methanol, which is subsequently metabolized into formaldehyde. There’s a host of other issues with aspartame, and I firmly believe this to be one of the worst artificial sweeteners on the market.

Alternative Natural Sweeteners

I always suggest that everyone, including healthy individuals, remove added sugars from their diet, including added sweeteners. While you can use stevia and other caloric natural sweeteners in moderation, to eliminate our addiction to sweet tastes and promote balance in our diet we must reduce them on all levels. Here are some of the natural sweeteners you should use, but only in moderation:

• Coconut Nectar


• Lo Han Extract


• Stevia


• Organic Raw Honey


• Organic Blackstrap Molasses


• Sugar Alcohols (xylitol, glycerol, sorbitol, maltitol, mannitol, and erythritol)

What sweeteners do you use? Have you had any personal health experiences with artificial sweeteners? Please share with us in the comments!

References:

1. Medicine Net. Saccharin: What are the cons? Medicine Net.


2. Schiffman SS, Rother KI. Sucralose, a synthetic organochlorine sweetener: overview of biological issues. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev. 2013;16(7):399-451. doi: 10.1080/10937404.2013.842523.


3. Pepino MY, Tiemann CD, Patterson BW, Wice BM, Klein S. Sucralose affects glycemic and hormonal responses to an oral glucose load. Diabetes Care. 2013 Sep;36(9):2530-5. doi: 10.2337/dc12-2221.


4. Iyyaswamy A, Rathinasamy S. Effect of chronic exposure to aspartame on oxidative stress in the brain of albino rats. J Biosci. 2012 Sep;37(4):679-88.

The Two Most Dangerous Artificial Sweeteners

Artificial sweeteners were initially designed to be sugar substitutes and a helpful tool for the battle against the bulge. Unfortunately, the state of obesity in the world has gotten worse, and artificial sweeteners are clearly not helping. You can find sugar substitutes in diet sodas, yogurt, and a host of other food products. These artificial sweetener additives mimic the flavor of sugar but offer no useful energy and may in fact be toxic.

The Two Most Concerning Artificial Sweeteners

There are five dangerous sugar substitutes that are approved for consumer use: saccharin, neotame, acesulfame potassium, aspartame, and sucralose. Of the five main artificial sweeteners, sucralose and aspartame are the most pervasive and dangerous substitutes found in products on store shelves today.

1. Sucralose

This additive is marketed under the name Splenda. Sucralose is basically denatured sucrose. Its preparation involves chlorinating sucrose, chemically changing the structure of the sugar molecules by substituting three chlorine atoms for three hydroxyl groups. ^[1]Chlorine a known carcinogen, so why would the FDA allow toxic materials to be used in our food and beverages?

It’s uncertain as to why the FDA approved sucralose knowing the nature of chlorine. You should know too that it was approved even with the pre-approval research revealed possible toxicity of the substance.

There have been no long-range studies of the effects of sucralose. The same thing happened with tobacco. As a result of not performing the required epidemiological research, it took years to track the dangerous effects of smoking cigarettes. It’s unfortunate and confusing that the same mistake is repeated even with the initial negative indications and checks and balances that are now in place. If the FDA does not step in and make monitoring and research possible and necessary, then we can’t readily learn the safety of such substances, including food items.

2. Aspartame

This additive is sold under the names Equal and NutraSweet and there are thousands of other everyday products that contain aspartame, too. Just to name a few: yogurt, sodas, pudding, tabletop sugar substitutes, chewing gum, bread, etc. For its approval we have to thank the Searle Company for falsifying reports, and unscrupulous attorneys for delaying legal proceedings. ^[2] Once the statute of limitations ran out and the product was once again up for review, many discrepancies came to light between reported versus actual findings.

Consumers lodge complaints about NutraSweet, to the tune of “80% of all complaints about food additives,” but Betty Martini reported that the FDA has yet to move on any of them. In spite of this inaction by the FDA, there are indications that this sweetener is toxic. According to Ms. Martini, in a report from Flying Safety, an official United States Air Force publication, US Air Force pilots were warned not to consume Aspartame in any amounts at all. Why? “Aspartame has been investigated as a possible cause of brain tumors, mental retardation, birth defects, epilepsy, Parkinson’s Disease, Fibromyalgia, and Diabetes.” ^[3] And the FDA has made no move to regulate this toxic substance.

How to Eliminate Toxins from Artificial Sweeteners

Check your food labels at home and throw out everything that has on its label:

• Aspartame


• Acesulfame Potassium (K)


• Saccharin or Sucralose


• NutraSweet®


• Splenda®

Use natural sweeteners like raw, organic honey. Avoid products that are labeled “low calorie,” “diet,” “sugar free,” or “no sugar added” since they all likely contain sugar additives. Drink purified water instead of diet drinks. Do NOT drink tap water because our drinking water has now been contaminated with sucralose. ^[4] We can’t depend on the government to protect us. It’s vital to be vigilant and actively take responsibility for yourself and your family in keeping this toxic trash out of your body and out of your life.

References:

1. AlDeeb OA, Mahgoub H, Foda NH. Sucralose. Profiles Drug Subst Excip Relat Methodol. 2013;38:423-62. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-407691-4.00010-1.


2. Pigi Cipelli. The Lowdown on Sweet? The New York Times.


3. FDA. Reported Aspartame Toxicity Effects. FDA.


4. Mawhinney DB, Young RB, Vanderford BJ, Borch T, Snyder SA. Artificial sweetener sucralose in U.S. drinking water systems. Environ Sci Technol. 2011 Oct 15;45(20):8716-22. doi: 10.1021/es202404c.

If You Want to Get Pregnant, Avoid Soda, New Study Suggests

New research shows that women who regularly consume sodas may be lowering their chances of getting pregnant.

For the study, researchers interviewed 524 women undergoing in-vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment about their food and beverage consumption. They found a link between low-calorie sweeteners, such as saccharine and sucrose, and reduced fertility rates. [1

Source: Time

The study was presented on 17 October 2016 at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine congress in Salt Lake City, Utah.

Diet sodas are considered by many women to be “healthier” than sugary ones, but the findings indicate that both natural and synthetic sweeteners raised the risk of an embryo having at least one deformity. The authors wrote:

“The general population believes that artificial sweeteners are healthier than regular sugar, and is not aware of the dangers hidden behind the promise of reduced calorie food and beverages.” [2]

A leading British fertility expert called the findings “highly significant” and cautioned women not to underestimate the effects of food additives on their chances of conception. [1]

Let’s take a look at some of the study’s other findings:

• Reduced rates of pregnancy were most closely linked with the consumption of soft drinks made with artificial sweeteners, in addition to coffee with added artificial sweeteners.

• Sugary soft drinks and coffee were associated with poorer egg quality and poorer pregnancy chances.

• Unsweetened coffee did not affect egg quality or the odds of becoming pregnant.

Said Professor Adam Balen, Chairman of the British Fertility Society:

“This is a very interesting study that suggests the false promise of artificial sweeteners that are found in soft drinks and added to drinks, such as coffee, may have a significant effect on the quality and fertility of woman’s eggs and this may further impact on the chances of conception.

These findings are highly significant to our population. There should be more scrutiny of food additives and better information available to the public and, in particular, those wishing to conceive.” [3]

Some experts have been slow to accept the findings, however, because they say obesity could have been a factor in the findings, noting the study’s lack of body-weight information, as well as the use of data from IVF patients. [1]

Furthermore, a spokesman from the British Dietetic Association said the study made no attempt to distinguish the impact on fertility outcomes of the body-weight of the women in the study from the impact of artificial sweeteners and sugar in their diets.

Professor Richard Sharpe, Group Leader of Male Reproductive Health Research Team, University of Edinburgh, noted that some of the women the researchers studied may have been drinking diet soda in an effort to lose weight. [2]

Unfortunately for these women, diet soda has been linked to weight gain. As a matter of fact, a study published in 2015 in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society found that drinking artificially sweetened soft drinks was associated with “escalating abdominal obesity.”

Over the course of the 9-year study, regular drinkers of diet soda added more than 3 inches around their middle, compared with those who didn’t drink diet soda. And the occasional diet soda drinkers increased approximately 1.8 inches around their midsections.

There is debate over whether diet soda literally causes this weight gain, or whether people who drink diet soda wind up consuming too many calories because they believe drinking diet soda means they can eat more.

Past studies have shown that excess weight can interfere with a woman’s estrogen levels and cause polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS), which can make it difficult for a woman to get pregnant. [2]

However, it’s important to note that past studies have also shown that artificial sweeteners may disrupt the gut’s delicate microbiome, which can increase the risk of metabolic syndrome – a group of conditions that include high blood pressure and high blood glucose (sugar) levels that overall increase the risk of heart disease. [2]

Source: Gut Health Project

Sources:

[1] The Telegraph

[2] Medical Daily

[3] Newsweek

Time

---

---

About Julie Fidler:
	Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.