• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

Summer is here, which means liquid consumption is on the rise. More students are turning to soft drinks labeled “diet” and “sugar-free,” as sugar substitutes found in these sodas seem to be the ideal no-hassle solution for our calorie-counting craze.

Sound too good to be true? It is.

The popular belief that people can minimize weight gain by drinking diet soda to cut sugar and calories is a misconception – there is no clear connection between artificial sweeteners (the ingredients that make diet soda “diet”) and weight loss, according to an article in The Arizona Republic.

Aspartame, known by the brand names Equal and NutraSweet, is the most controversial artificial sweetener.

At 200 times sweeter than sugar, it is rapidly digested into its three chemical components: aspartic acid, phenylalanine and methanol.

Groups of physicians and researchers believe that certain chronic illnesses can be worsened or even brought about with aspartame ingestion, such as mental retardation, chronic fatigue and brain tumors.

Methanol makes up 10 percent of aspartame. Once in the body, methanol breaks down into formaldehyde – a neurotoxin used in the embalming process. Equal states that the “other” ingredients (including methanol) are found naturally in most foods, such as fruit; however, unlike Equal, natural foods have ethanol, a buffer counteracting possible methanol poisoning.

The European Foundation of Oncology and Environmental Sciences concluded in 2005 that aspartame causes cancer. The FDA has found this data incomplete and otherwise insufficient to “change” their “conclusions” about aspartame, indicating the pressure the FDA may feel from large corporations to ignore these health issues.

Saccharine, another sugar substitute that is also known as Sweet’N Low, has risen out of a questionable past. In the 1970s, the FDA considered banning saccharine because animal studies showed that it caused bladder cancer. According to the National Cancer Institute, Congress required all foods containing the synthetic chemical to bear a warning label: “Use of this product may be hazardous to your health.”

The Calorie Control Council (comprised of low-calorie food and beverage representatives) convinced Congress that the animal tests did not apply to humans. Despite objections from many scientists, saccharine was removed from the carcinogen list and the warning requirement was repealed.

When Sandra Perrot, a long-time Sweet’N Low consumer, discovered that she had a brain tumor, her doctor told her to re-evaluate her diet. “I had about three diet sodas a day and was experiencing increased memory loss,” Perrot said.

After a successful operation and quitting sweeteners for good, Perrot started feeling much better. “My memory improved and so did my learning capabilities – I feel there is a connection between my diet and my well-being,” she said.

Sucralose, also known as Splenda, is about 600 times sweeter than sugar and is currently the sweetest alternative to sugar on the market. Splenda’s slogan, “Made with sugar, so it tastes like sugar,” leads to a misconception that it is natural and harmless.

The FDA states that sucralose is 98 percent pure. The other 2 percent is comprised of heavy metals, arsenic and other contaminants.

Splenda claimed that its product passes through the body unabsorbed and thus presents no problems. On the contrary, the FDA found that 11 percent to 27 percent is absorbed.

Revolving doors, industry-agency mutual support, the vague language of government reports and the difficulty in finding them, and the dominance of industry-funded studies are pointing out a problem right in front of our slumbering common sense.

The FDA has not said that artificial sweeteners have no side effects and are completely safe, so we as consumers cannot afford the possibility of a connection.

Can we?

For help with panic attacks after post-column reading, e-mail Oster at moster@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.