Acesulfame potassium sometimes blended with aspartame and Splenda

[Guest guest]

I thank Barbara for sending this to me. In Dr.

Roberts first book he mentions that Acesulfame

potassium caused cancer and leukemia in original

studies. I remember when I saw Acesulfame K in

Return to Eden (Sunnett) who never carries

anything unsafe. But they had been given

misleading information on safety so I faxed them

a page from some book about this product and she

withdrew it. So then Dr. McCall calls me from

Sunnett upset about having it removed. I knew he

wasn't going to give me all the facts but he

finally said: " Well, Mrs. Martini, Acesulfame K

didn't cause all the horrors like aspartame did

with brain tumors, only mammary tumors. " So I

told Dr. Abe McCall " No thank you, I don't want

breast cancer either. " He got mad and hung up on

me. When I told someone what he said he called

back and got mad because I told somebody about

the mammary tumors he admitted to. He said, " I

didn't give you permission to tell the public

Acesulfame K causes mammary tumors. " I told him

that's the problem, industry only uses propaganda

but the real truth they keep from consumers to

defend their product. However, as you can see

from Dr. Roberts book he didn't give the full

facts. And you can go to CSPI's web site for more

information and there is some on

<http://www.dorway.com/>www.dorway.com and on

<http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame>www.holisticmed.com/aspartame

Also remember that splenda is a chlorocarbon poison.

 

Watch out for this product because many times you

don't notice it. It's very toxic and just another poison added to aspartame.

 

All my best,

Betty

www.mpwhi.com, www.dorway.com and www.wnho.net

Aspartame Toxicity Center, www.holisticmed.com/aspartame

* , Fred & Barbara Metzler wrote:

>

>

><http://sefora.org/2008/11/10/fda-and-nih-disappoint-on-sweetener-safety/>http:\

//sefora.org/2008/11/10/fda-and-nih-disappoint-on-sweetener-safety/

>

> FDA and NIH Disappoint on Sweetener Safety

>

> By Myra L. Karstadt, Ph.D at

>

<http://thepumphandle.wordpress.com/2008/11/07/fda-and-nih-disappoint-on-sweeten\

er-safety/>The

> Pump Handle

>

> Did you enjoy your acesulfame today? How

> much did you eat? Do you know whether acesulfame is safe to eat?

>

> Those are not trick questions. Acesulfame

> is currently one of the best-selling artificial

> sweeteners in America, but it’s likely that

> very few people even know that acesulfame is in

> many of their foods and beverages.

>

> The FDA has approved acesulfame as a food

> additive, but it based its decision on flawed studies.

>

>

> Stealth Sweetener

> There’s a good reason why acesulfame has

> such a low profile: it’s usually a back-up

> player, used in sweetener blends with other

> artificial sweeteners. Most frequently, you’ll

> encounter acesulfame in blends with sucralose

> (Splenda), the #1 artificial sweetener in the country.

>

> When you see “Sweetened with Splenda” on the

> front of a package of processed food, take a

> look at the ingredients list on the back of the

> package. Most likely, before or after

> sucralose you’ll see an entry for acesulfame or

> acesulfame potassium (the longer name for the

> chemical). Ingredients are listed in

> descending order of amount in a product, and

> artificial sweeteners such as sucralose,

> acesulfame and aspartame usually appear way

> down towards the end of the ingredient

> listings. That’s because you don’t need much

> “high-intensity” artificial

> sweetener: acesulfame is approximately 200

> times sweeter than sugar, while sucralose is

> approximately 600 times sweeter than sugar.

>

> The range of products in which acesulfame

> appears is very wide; some products are listed

> in Table I. Many diet sodas contain

> acesulfame, in blends with either aspartame or

> sucralose. The product range is so wide

> because, unlike some other artificial

> sweeteners such as aspartame, acesulfame and

> sucralose are stable to heat and cold. Also,

> acesulfame is said to create what is claimed to

> be a better-balanced sweet taste than you would

> get with Splenda or aspartame alone.

> Table 1: Some processed food products containing acesulfame*

>

> Product

> December 2005

> September 2008

> Jell-O gelatin, sugar free

> aspartame, acesulfame

> aspartame, acesulfame

> Murray cookies, sugar free

> sorbitol, sucralose, acesulfame

> acesulfame, sucralose

> 4C Totally Light, naturally decaffeinated, natural lemon flavor

> sucralose, acesulfame

> acesulfame, sucralose

> Kool-Aid, sugar free

> aspartame, acesulfame

> aspartame, acesulfame

> Ocean Spray Light/ Diet Ocean Spray Cranberry

> acesulfame, sucralose

> acesulfame, sucralose

> Breyer’s, no sugar added, Double Churn

> sucralose, acesulfame

> sucralose, acesulfame

> Swiss Mix cocoa mix

> Splenda, acesulfame (Diet with calcium)

> acesulfame, sucralose (Sensible Secrets Diet 25 calories

>

> The one product where acesulfame takes a

> starring role is Domino Pure D’Lite, a baking

> blend which combines sugar with three

> sweeteners: acesulfame, maltodextrin (a

> derivative of corn or wheat), neotame (a

> modified aspartame reported to be approximately

> 8000 times sweeter than sugar). Consumer

> Reports recently rated the Domino baking

> product better for baking than the Splenda

> baking blend. (1). (The reason the Domino

> product contains acesulfame is that Domino,

> although probably the best-known brand sugar,

> couldn’t use sucralose in its baking blend

> because of exclusivity agreements between Tate

> & Lyell, the producer of sucralose, and a

> Johnson & Johnson subsidiary which markets Splenda products in the U.S.)

>

> Concerns About Acesulfame

> Acesulfame was never demonstrated to be

> non-carcinogenic and FDA should not have

> approved it for use as a food additive. Food

> additives such as acesulfame are required to be

> pre-cleared for safety before an additive is

> marketed. In addition, the

> <http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/%7Elrd/histor1a.html>Delaney

> Clause still applies to food additives, so if a

> food additive is carcinogenic and will appear

> in foods consumed by people, it cannot be approved.

>

> The long-term animal test data purporting to

> show acesulfame’s safety, specifically as

> regards cancer potential, are deeply flawed.

>

> The animal tests on acesulfame were carried

> out in the mid-1970s, a period when standards

> and procedures for animal carcinogenicity tests

> were being developed. Science staff at FDA who

> reviewed the tests of acesulfame in the 1980s

> noted that: “[the] question remains whether

> these studies are sufficiently definitive or

> rigorous in light of the potential for

> widespread, high exposure to acesulfame

> potassium in all group [sic] in the population.” (2).

>

> What was wrong with the tests? They were

> poorly designed, badly executed, and data from

> the studies weren’t analyzed properly. Way

> back in the early 1980s, FDA could and should

> have required new good tests in rats and mice.

>

> Unfortunately, instead of requiring that

> Hoechst, which manufactures acesulfame, do new

> good tests, FDA let Hoechst discard a study

> carried out in rats whose results suggested

> acesulfame caused cancer, and carry out a redo

> of pathology for a second study in rats where

> there were insufficient numbers of tissues

> collected for evaluation. The one study

> carried out in mice went on for 80 rather than

> 104 weeks, the standard length of long-term

> animal studies. Eighty weeks may not have been

> sufficient to detect cancers caused by acesulfame exposure.

>

> In 1988, FDA approved Hoechst’s food

> additive petition (FAP) for use of acesulfame

> in some dry products and formulations. (3).

> That initial approval, which okayed Hoechst’s

> test data, has been used by FDA as the basis

> for subsequent food additive approvals.

>

> Flawed Tests – and Flawed Conclusion

> The “big kahuna” in the artificial

> sweeteners world is soda. (These days, soda

> consumption seems to be down from where it was

> in say, 1990, but artificially sweetened

> flavored water, energy drinks, and fruit drinks

> have provided new and/or increased opportunities for use of acesulfame.)

>

> In 1996, FDA was considering a food additive

> petition (FAP) for use of acesulfame in soda.

> The Center for Science in the Public Interest

> (CSPI) had filed repeated objections to FDA’s

> approvals of acesulfame. It was clear that FDA,

> which had blown off CSPI’s objections to

> previous food additive approvals for

> acesulfame, wouldn’t be swayed from approving

> acesulfame use in soda. However, there was a

> possible route to slowing the approval: getting

> good tests of acesulfame done by the National Toxicology Program (NTP).

>

> NTP is the federal government’s toxicology

> testing agency. NTP is an inter-agency

> organization, with FDA among the agencies that

> can nominate chemicals for testing and, it

> seems, veto nominations for testing made by

> other agencies or members of the public. NTP

> developed the methodology for two-year

> bioassays in rats and mice, and that

> standardized methodology is often referred to

> as the “gold standard” for long-term animal testing.

>

> In 1996, CSPI, where I was then working on

> acesulfame, nominated the sweetener for

> long-term testing by NTP in the standard

> two-year bioassay. Looking at the methodology

> of the 1970s Hoechst tests and NTP’s “gold

> standard bioassays,” it’s obvious that the

> methodologies have little in common. There were

> all sorts of errors in design and

> implementation of the Hoechst tests related to

> selection of test animals, animal husbandry,

> selection of maximum tolerated dose (MTD),

> length of time animals were kept on test, and

> collection of tissues for study by gross and

> microscopic pathology. The NTP test design was

> “gold,” while Hoechst’s tests looked like they had been designed by Mel

Brooks.

>

> What happened to the CSPI nomination? The

> CSPI nomination was rejected even though It

> would have been obvious to NTP staff that the Hoechst tests were not adequate.

>

> Although CSPI’s nomination for testing of

> acesulfame in the bioassay program was

> rejected, FDA and NTP did decide to do a study

> in which test animals would be treated with

> acesulfame. According to Dr. Sam Wilson,

> Acting Director of the National Institute of

> Environmental Health Sciences (the parent

> organization of NTP): “NTP carefully reviewed

> the CSPI’s 1996 nomination for carcinogenicity

> testing of acesulfame. In response to this

> nomination, the NTP carried out toxicology

> studies in genetically modified mice……” (4).

>

> Unfortunately, the GMM (genetically modified

> mice) strains selected for the study were known

> to be insensitive to chemicals like acesulfame,

> which are not genotoxic (interacting directly

> with the constituent bases of DNA). Those

> studies were meaningless as regards potential

> carcinogenicity of acesulfame, although they

> did provide confirmation that acesulfame would

> not have any effect on the insensitive mice.

> NTP announced their negative test results in

> 2003, concluding that acesulfame hadn’t caused

> cancer in the GMM. The published version of the

> GMM test results, which came out in 2005, did

> note that test animals’ insensitivity to the

> test compound would be a possible reason for negative results.

>

> After completion of the GMM studies of

> acesulfame, the meaningless negative results

> were then drawn on by FDA and NTP to support

> their conclusion that long-term bioassay of

> acesulfame wasn’t necessary. According to Dr.

> Wilson: “Based upon the findings from the [GMM]

> studies and in consultation with FDA, it was

> determined that additional testing of

> acesulfame was not warranted at that time.” (5).

>

> That’s exactly the opposite of the correct

> conclusion: negative results likely linked to

> the GMM insensitivity to acesulfame didn’t give

> any insights into whether or not acesulfame

> caused cancer in animals. Long-term tests were needed to clear that up.

>

> In mid-1998, FDA approved acesulfame for use

> in soda. A few sodas containing acesulfame,

> usually in combination with aspartame, went

> onto the market, but it wasn’t until sucralose

> (approved for general use in food in 2002)

> zoomed in popularity that acesulfame’s own sales took off.

>

> Still Awaiting Better Testing

> By 2006, “Sweetened with Splenda” processed

> foods with acesulfame as a “stealth sweetener”

> were all over the supermarket shelves. I

> became concerned about the sudden increase in

> acesulfame use, and that year I filed FOIAs

> with NIEHS to obtain documentation of why

> CSPI’s 1996 nomination of acesulfame had been

> rejected. In addition, I published a letter in

> Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP) (6)

> expressing my concern about acesulfame’s

> widespread use without adequate safety

> testing. I also nominated acesulfame for testing by NTP.

>

> Once again, the nomination for NTP bioassay

> of acesulfame was rejected. Subsequent FOIA

> attempts by me and by me in cooperation with

> Dr. Michael F. Jacobson, Executive Director of

> CSPI, to obtain information on why the 2006

> nomination had been rejected, were

> unsuccessful. NIH simply stonewalled the FOIA requests.

>

> Finally, I asked my Congressman’s office to

> send a letter to NTP asking them why they

> hadn’t been willing to test acesulfame. I’ve

> quoted from the NIEHS reply above. The letter

> to Rep. Van Hollen from Sam Wilson, Acting

> Director of NIEHS as of mid-2008, makes it

> clear that FDA didn’t want acesulfame tested

> and the meaningless GMM tests were selected by

> NTP with FDA to take the place of bioassays.

>

> So where are we now? Because acesulfame,

> unlike saccharin, wasn’t considered

> carcinogenic by FDA, and the chemical, unlike

> aspartame, hasn’t been linked with illness in

> people, there is no warning on a food label to

> call people’s attention to the presence of

> acesulfame. People- and especially children-

> are consuming, most likely without even being

> aware of it, a food additive of unknown toxicity.

>

> Millions of people are currently consuming

> acesulfame. Poor safety tests carried out in

> the 1970s that were inadequate in the 1980s are

> certainly inadequate now, given the sweetener’s

> extensive use. Good tests of quality

> consistent with the NTP bioassays are needed,

> and, if FDA and NTP continue to resist carrying

> out good tests or ordering the manufacturer to

> do them, Congress may need to do a review of

> the activities at FDA in the food additives

> area in general and acesulfame in particular.

>

> Until the safety of acesulfame is

> established, it would be wise to follow

> <http://www.cspinet.org/nah/05_04/sweet_nothings_canada.pdf>CSPI’s

> good advice: avoid foods containing acesulfame. (7).

>

> Myra L. Karstadt, Ph.D is an adjunct

> assistant professor at Drexel University’s School of Public Health.

>

> References

> 1. Consumer Reports. 2007. Sweeteners. How

> the brands measure up. October 2007: 16-17.

> Unfortunately, Consumer Reports, with which

> I have corresponded, has shown little interest

> in discussing potential carcinogenicity of

> acesulfame in their articles on artificial sweeteners.

>

> 2. Taylor LL. 1986. Memorandum: Request for

> CAC Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Potential of

> Acesulfame K: Update. U.S. Food and Drug

> Administration, Additives Evaluation Branch re:

> Food Additive Petition No. 2A-3659 (June 19,

> 1986). This memorandum was obtained from FDA through FOIA.

>

> 3. U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

> 1988. Press release: Acesulfame Potassium

> (Sweetner) [sic] Approval. (July 27, 1988);

> Food and Drug Administration (1988). Food

> additives permitted for direct addition to food

> for human consumption; Final rule. 53 FR 28379-28383 (July 28,1988).

>

> 4. Wilson SH. 2008. Letter to the Honorable

> Chris Van Hollen (June 16, 2008).

>

> 5. Wilson SH. 2008. 4, supra.

>

> 6. Karstadt ML. 2006. Testing needed for

> acesulfame potassium, an artificial

> sweetener. Environ. Health Perspect 114(9): A516 (September 2006).

>

> 7. Schardt D. 2004. Sweet Nothings: Not All

> Sweeteners are Equal. Nutrition Action Health Letter (May 2004): 8-11.