In fact, the night is never black. In the night, Albizzia julibrissin is still red, and the fluffy wisteria is still purple and white, which has nothing to do with the night or the day.
-< < Feng Tang Buer > >
This is a simple truth, rumors put on the cloak of [science], are still rumors. However, there are always some health rumors, which are uttered by false [doctors] and [experts] and whitewashed with some professional terms, and then wander around cyberspace like ghosts, just like the popular rumor of [sweeteners lead to leukemia] some time ago.
The article said: The main reason why children are prone to leukemia is drinks, It contains a large number of sweeteners, which cannot be degraded after entering the human body, and will enter the bone marrow through the kidney. When the sweeteners in the bone marrow accumulate to a certain extent, they will become the [net] blocking the bone marrow, causing the hematopoietic function of the bone marrow to be affected. After development to a certain extent, leukemia will be caused.
The [sweetener] mentioned in this article is a synthetic additive (also called sweetener) that gives food sweetness, and the typical representatives are saccharin and aspartame.
God, can people still have a pleasant drink?
An unexpected discovery by a chemist
In other words, the discovery of both was full of joy: in 1878, Russian Konstantin Fahberg finished tossing and turning bottles and cans in the laboratory, and when he got home, he grabbed food without washing his hands. As a result, what was extremely sweet. Then, he unexpectedly returned to the laboratory and licked the bottles and cans again, thus discovering [saccharin]; In 1965, chemist Schlet accidentally licked his finger while synthesizing an anti-ulcer drug at G.D.Searle Company. As a result, the ulcer drug was not made, but aspartame was discovered by accident.
Sweets are a source of happiness. They can stimulate the brain to release the pleasant chemical serotonin. Many brain cells related to mood, sexual function, sleep, memory, learning and appetite are affected by serotonin.
The birth of sweeteners has also injected a stimulant into the food industry. Because they are hundreds of times sweeter than sucrose, and some kinds of calories can be negligible, they can not only satisfy people’s desire for sweets, but also greatly reduce production costs. They can also flaunt [zero calories, healthier], and are also good news and saviors for the increasing number of diabetics.
The ill-fated saccharin: its impact on human health is negligible.
However, compared with some chemists whose nerves are so big that what dares to lick them, The general public will be even more timid and cherish their lives. The Chinese stress the gift of nature, while the Westerners appreciate the gift of the Creator, and are often full of doubts and resistance to chemically synthesized substances. Sweeteners, represented by saccharin and aspartame, have had a bad fate. Since their birth, they have been rolling on the forefront of public opinion many times.
People’s doubts about sweeteners originated from a research report in the 1970s: When rats were fed large doses of saccharin (up to hundreds of cans of coke), The risk of bladder cancer has increased significantly. In the same year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced a ban on saccharin. However, since saccharin was the only sugar substitute on the market at that time, the ban was strongly opposed by a large number of diabetics. FDA was forced to lift the ban and put a warning label on foods containing saccharin: [saccharin may be a carcinogen].
However, many subsequent studies have not found any correlation between sweeteners and urinary system tumors. There are many large-scale case-control studies published in the heavyweight medical journals New England and the Lancet. All of the studies point to a clear fact: although the metabolism of saccharin in human body varies from race to race, the effect of normal dose of saccharin intake on human health is negligible.
[Doubts about the safety of saccharin come from a defective study. The carcinogenic principle in rats is not applicable to humans.]
In 2000, the United States abolished relevant laws and regulations, and saccharin food did not need to be labeled with health warning labels. Today, saccharin is also allowed to be used as sweetener in China, with a safe daily intake of 2.5 milligrams per kilogram of body weight.
More Controversial Aspartame: FDA Says Its Safety [No Doubt]
Compared with saccharin, aspartame’s controversial process is even more heated. Since the 1980s, studies have warned that aspartame may cause epilepsy and headache. However, this small fight cannot stop people from pursuing sweets. Soft drinks containing aspartame are full of supermarket shelves.
However, in the following 1990s, A US study suggested a possible correlation between aspartame and brain tumors. In 2005, An Italian scholar who has studied aspartame for many years has proved through animal experiments that aspartame can cause cancer in rats. At that time, aspartame became the target of public criticism. A British congressman even called for all foods and beverages containing aspartame to be removed from the shelves because [it is even more dangerous than Sudan red].
Similarly, like saccharin, the carcinogenicity in rats may not be applicable to humans. So, is aspartame’s research in the population how’s?
Two famous epidemiological studies are introduced here. One is the largest study on diet and health so far. The study was initiated by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). From 1995 to 1996, NIH sent out 3.5 million questionnaires to people aged 50-71, covering diet structure, life and behavior habits. More than 500,000 questionnaires were collected. NIH followed up the 500,000 people for 10 years and found no correlation between aspartame or other sweeteners and brain tumors.
Another notable epidemiological study is the Nurses’ Health Study, The purpose of the study is to find the risk factors of tumors and cardiovascular diseases. The study has followed up more than 120,000 nurses since 1976. After 1989, nearly 120,000 nurses were followed up again. In the following 22 years, 1888 new patients with hematological tumors (339 of whom were leukemia) were found. Researchers did not find any correlation between aspartame and hematological tumors compared with people who took aspartame more than 600 mg per day and people who did not take aspartame.
FDA calls aspartame [one of the most thoroughly studied food additives] and its safety [without doubt].
On Carcinogenesis of Sweeteners: Believe in Strictly Designed and Screened Scientific Evidence Chain
Perhaps conspiracy theorists will question whether the research conducted by the United States, as a major producer and promoter of aspartame, has hidden [trade secrets]?
Similarly, The World Health Organization’s Committee of Experts on Food Additives (JECFA) and the European Food Safety Administration (EFSA) have also evaluated the safety of aspartame several times. Considering that aspartame did not have adverse reactions at 4000 mg per kilogram of body weight during animal experiments, after setting a safety factor of 100 times, the safe intake of human body was finally determined to be 40 mg per kilogram of body weight, which means:
People weighing 60 kilograms eat 2.4 grams a day, which is equivalent to the content in more than 10 cans of cola. They will be at peace all their lives and their safety [there is no doubt].
I know there will be some people who are alarmist: it is also scientific research. Animal experiments have revealed the carcinogenicity of sweeteners. Why do you turn a blind eye? My idea is that I believe more in the strictly designed and screened scientific evidence chain than in the [amazing] research of individual conclusions.
Of course, I am not saying that sweeteners such as aspartame have no shortcomings. Of course, they do. For example, they are not suitable for people with phenylketonuria. However, on the carcinogenicity of saccharin and aspartame, my conclusion is that accidents are not science and there is no sufficient evidence to show their correlation with cancer.
Author: Chen Qi
This article is exclusively authorized by the author to be used by Clove Garden and refuses any other form of reprinting.