you have to look at the reasons why the food industry prefers using artificial sweeteners

no land needed to grow and maintain crops
no water, fertilizer, time and care for a crop
no harvesting of any crop of any kind …

just trucks loaded with chemicals going to a factory with other trucks loaded with chemicals and all these chemicals are mixed and out the other end of the factory comes artificial sweeteners which are loaded on to other trucks, wash rinse repeat

an accountants best dream and a massive profit boost for the food industry
so when they say 'trust us', artificial sweeteners are 'safe' for you to use
just remember you are boosting there profit margins with your own health …

I see. So, you assume that chemicals like artificial sweeteners are free do you?

Artificial sweeteners are used because they impart the same level of sweetness as sugar (sucrose) at much lower concentrations. They are typically hundreds or even thousands of times sweeter on a weight for weight basis with little or no calorific value.

As for aspartame, have a look at the MSDS: clickey. Click on the MSDS link on the Left hand side of the page and select your language and it will open in your .pdf viewer of choice.

There are no R phrases associated with it. Risk Phrases list known toxic and other safety effects of the compound. While a lack of R-phrases doesn't indicate something is absolutely safe it does indicate that nothing has so far been found that indicates a problem and for something as widely consumed as aspartame there's a LOT of available evidence. It does note behavioural modifications in children (rat children to be exact) and this is fairly accurate when transferred to humans. Hyperactivity in children doesn't trigger an R-phrase.

As a result of its effects on children however, aspartame is being replaced by other, more modern and advanced sweeteners like Sucralose (which is based on sucrose but swaps many of the hydroxyl groups for Chlorines and is about 500x sweeter IIRC).

And don't get me started on 'Natural'. Why should natural be better? Aaaahhhh! Some of the most deadly poisons on the planet are 'Natural' for gods sake. Natural does not mean better.

To be honest the EU is pretty hot with substances that are a danger to health. If anyone here is concerned, why not write to your MEPs and ask them to look into it? You'd be surprised how far up your message goes - I've had more than one personal reply from EU Commissioners, which is more than I can say the responses that I usually get out of Westminster!

The 9p a bottle eco-brand fizzy pop uses artificial sweetners because they work out cheaper than sugar. Of course it's not free, but you use so little of it that production and transport costs are greatly reduced.



This is very true. However; we've lived with these substances for millions of years. The very reason some of them are so toxic is that we're genetically and chemically similar to plants. We co-evolved. Some natural toxins and medicines may be coincidence due to our similarity, and some may have evolved as defence mechanisms.

However; when it comes to food-stuffs then generally speaking our bodies evolved to deal with naturally occurring produce. The long term effect of any new substance over 40 years or more can not be determined by any method. There's simply too much [LIFTED] in our food now to tell what causes what, but there are endemic medical conditions now which simply were not there to the same degree 50 years ago. Many people blame modern chemicals, and if you look to areas of the world where they're not used then you do not find the same problems.

Even something relatively harmless sounding like a stereo isomer of natural product can't be digested because our enzymes won't work. Eat mirror-image fats or sugars, and you won't gain weight but you'll get diarrhoea.

People on this very thread have born witness that artificial sweeteners give them migrains or other symptoms. Why would they deceive us?

At no point did I suggest that forum members would try to deceive about symptoms from artificial sweeteners. Anything can give people side effects, whether artificial or otherwise.

As for the increase in food related maladies, I'm not even going to try and say that modern chemicals can't possibly be the cause. However, it's unlikely that they are the only ones. If you want to pick Western diet as a culprit then the shear quantity of food consumed is at least as likely a culprit and the increase in allergies can be attributed to less exposure to immune boosting bacteria in young children's lives.

As a chemist myself I find the public attitude to chemistry rather depressing. We aren't good at 'selling' the important work we do and the huge benefits chemistry has produced. It's very easy to blame the mad gits in white coats for all the problems without looking at where we also have or are working on solutions.

Agreed. What people eat around the world has changed so much in the last 50 years it's no surprise we have problems. Chemistry is only part of the story. It's not just the crazy blue powders made by crazy (blue?) chemists; it's simply about the way we're "designed". These days, "gluttony" is possibly the biggest killer of all - we do everything to excess; and not just food.

Take the introduction of large amounts of dairy and wheat into populations not used to it. People in different parts of the world evolved to thrive on different foods. Alcohol or Lactose intolerance is quite rare in the west, but I read that it is about 50:50 in the east where they never depended on beer and fresh milk. They boil the water to make tea, rather than ferment it into beer. Fresh milk is only safe for about 10 seconds in a hot climate, so they boiled that too, or fermented it. Wheat intolerance is also no surprise if you're the first generation to eat it in a line that most ate rice.

Also, soya was never before consumed as a flour or modified protein. It was always fermented. You now find soya flour in so many things that it's difficult to avoid. It doesn't bother me, but I know people who can't tolerate it.

Of course science has come up with wonderful things. For one simple example, preservatives probably saved many people from food poisoning. However, I've noticed them used in much smaller amounts. Brown Sauce used to keep in the cupboard for decades; now it says "keep refrigerated and use in 6 days"!!! I know for a fact that I'm sensitive to sulphur dioxide. It gives me bad heart burn, diarrhoea and a headache. It's particularly frustrating because you find it in cheap wine. It's been used since Egyptian times; but then they also used lead and copper...

I'd say that the huge amounts of carbohydrates, especially refined sugars we consume are the main culprits for malnutrition in the western world. I know that personally when I cut out bread I start to feel healthier, but making lunch becomes trickier.

I'm going to start working in an office soon, and I plan to buy a nice bento box and take sushi most days. It doesn't take any longer than making good sandwiches, and you can throw in various leftovers.

I know rice is a high-carb grain too, but it just seems healthier than wheat.

I do love bread though. It's so damned tasty and convenient

Nothing wrong with rice in the middle of the day, nice complex carb to keep you going all afternoon.

I just cannot have any drinks with aspartame in as it gives me a splitting headache within 15mins - also have to avoid Soya which makes shopping rather fun having to look at the ingredient labels

i practically run on hula hoops, vimto, chocolate and peanut butter sandwiches, and im not dead. suss that out

Not dead yet. How old are you?

17

and yes, i forgot the yet

You probably have until your mid-twenties before it starts to show on you, if it hasn't already

whats wrong with peanut butter sandwitches? I have 2 of them a day