The Truth About Artificial Sweeteners: How Bad Are Saccharin, Aspartame?


sweetenersToo much sugar will make you fat, but too much artificial sweetener will … do what exactly? Kill you? Make you thinner? Or have absolutely no effect at all?

This week marks the 40th anniversary of the Food and Drug Administration’s decision to ban cyclamate, the first artificial sweetener prohibited in the U.S., and yet scientists still haven’t reached a consensus about how safe (or harmful) artificial sweeteners may be. Shouldn’t we have figured this out by now?

The first artificial sweetener, saccharin, was discovered in 1879 when Constantin Fahlberg, a Johns Hopkins University scientist working on coal-tar derivatives, noticed a substance on his hands and arms that tasted sweet. No one knows why Fahlberg decided to lick an unknown substance off his body, but it’s a good thing he did. Despite an early attempt to ban the substance in 1911 – skeptical scientists said it was an “adulterant” that changed the makeup of food – saccharin grew in popularity, and was used to sweeten foods during sugar rationings in World Wars I and II. Though it is about 300 times sweeter than sugar and has zero calories, saccharin leaves an unpleasant metallic aftertaste. So when cyclamate came on the market in 1951, food and beverage companies jumped at the chance to sweeten their products with something that tasted more natural. By 1968, Americans were consuming more than 17 million pounds of the calorie-free substance a year in snack foods, canned fruit and soft drinks like Tab and Diet Pepsi.

But in the late 1960s, studies began linking cyclamate to cancer. One noted that chicken embryos injected with the chemical developed extreme deformities, leading scientists to wonder if unborn humans could be similarly damaged by their cola-drinking mothers. Another study linked the sweetener to malignant bladder tumors in rats. Because a 1958 congressional amendment required the FDA to ban any food additive shown to cause cancer in humans or animals, on Oct. 18, 1969, the government ordered cyclamate removed from all food products.

Saccharin became mired in controversy in 1977, when a study indicated that the substance might contribute to cancer in rats. An FDA move to ban the chemical failed, though products containing saccharin were required to carry warning labels. In 2000, the chemical was officially removed from the Federal Government’s list of suspected carcinogens. (Read TIME’s 1974 article on cyclamate and saccharin.)

In 1981, the synthetic compound aspartame was approved for use, and it capitalized on saccharin’s bad publicity by becoming the leading additive in diet colas. In 1995 and 1996, misinformation about aspartame that linked the chemical to everything from multiple sclerosis to Gulf War syndrome was widely disseminated on the Internet. While aspartame does adversely effect some people – including those who are unable to metabolize the amino acid phenylalanine – it has been tested more than 200 times, and each test has confirmed that your Diet Coke is safe to drink. Nor have any health risks been detected in more than 100 clinical tests of sucralose, a chemically altered sugar molecule found in food, drinks, chewing gum and Splenda.

The fear-mongering and misinformation plaguing the faux-sweetener market seems to be rooted in a common misconception. No evidence indicates that sweeteners cause obesity; people with weight problems simply tend to eat more of it. While recent studies have suggested a possible link between artificial sweeteners and obesity, a direct link between additives and weight gain has yet to be found. The general consensus in the scientific community is that saccharin, aspartame and sucralose are harmless when consumed in moderation. And while cyclamate is still banned in the U.S., many other countries still allow it; it can even be found in the Canadian version of Sweet’n Low. Low-calorie additives won’t make you thinner or curb your appetite. But they help unsweetened food taste better without harming you. And that’s sweet enough.

{Time Magazine}

{ Newscenter}


  1. SWEET N LOW has wine derived “cream of tarter”, which is OSSUR. Splenda has none of the problems of all the others. I reviewed the formula & the chemistry of Splenda.

  2. “Aspartame is extremely dangerous. It is the slow accumulation of these chemical toxins in the body that has serious and detrimental effects on your health. Aspartame was first approved for widespread use in the U.S. in July of 1983. Within six months, brain tumor rates were reported to have climbed 10%; diabetes reportedly increased by 30% and brain lymphoma tumors increased by a whopping 60%. Learn how the FDA scandalously approved this toxic chemical, which is now one of the most widespread food additives in the U.S.”

    “We highly recommend you watch the documentary, Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World.avi. This film clearly shows how dangerous the artificial sweetener Aspartame really is. From its history, to its effects, this video is enough to shock anyone into really looking at all food labels. Aspartame is a toxic food that came into the world as an investment by Donald Rumsfeld, while ignoring the deadly effects the tests showed. Take the time to watch this entire film; your knowledge could save your own, or someone else’s life! Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World.avi.”


  3. June 26, 2007 — Researchers and a scientific watchdog group are calling on regulators to take a new look at the safety of aspartame following a new study concluding that the popular sweetener promotes cancer in rats.

    The study, published in a U.S. government journal, found increased rates of malignancies in animals fed aspartame throughout their lifespan. The product, which is the key ingredient in sweeteners including NutraSweet and Equal, is also used to sweeten thousands of food products and is widely used in diet soft drinks.

    Aspartame first gained U.S. approval in 1981. Ever since, manufacturers have vigorously defended its safety. On Tuesday, an industry group blasted the study as flawed and warned it would needlessly alarm consumers.

    But the Italy-based research team said their study shows that lifetime exposure of rats to aspartame — beginning in the womb — increased the incidence of having cancerous tumors by the time they died.

    “We believe that a review of the current regulations governing the use of aspartame cannot be delayed,” wrote researchers from the European Ramazzini Foundation of Oncology and Environmental Sciences in Bologna.  The study was published online in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, published by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

    The consumer group Center for Science in the Public Interest followed the study with a call on the FDA to revisit its original approval of aspartame.

    “Because aspartame is so widely consumed, it is urgent that the FDA evaluate whether aspartame still poses a ‘reasonable certainty of no harm,’ the standard used for gauging the safety of food additives,” Michael Jacobson, the group’s executive director, said in a statement.

    “But consumers, particularly parents, shouldn’t wait for the FDA to act. People shouldn’t panic, but they should stop buying beverages and foods containing aspartame,” he said. (See full article at

    (See the official report of the Italian Study at

  4. “Aspartame was the most studied additive ever approved by the Food and Drug Administration,” argues Martha Stone, Nutrition Advisor and professor at Colorado State University. Stone, an advocate for aspartame, claims that “aspartame wouldn’t have gotten to the market if it caused problems in humans” (qtd. In Castrone 12D). Does “most studied” imply safe for human consumption? More importantly, what were the results of these studies and how was aspartame approved? An in depth look at the history of aspartame approval reveals a trail of suspicious methods and possible collusion between the FDA and the G. D. Searle company, manufacturer of aspartame.

    Aspartame was discovered in 1965 by a chemist from the Searle company (Farber 53). After researching their product to determine its safety, Searle submitted tests to the FDA for the approval of aspartame. According to The Deadly Deception, compiled by the Aspartame Consumer Safety Network, the FDA approved aspartame in 1974 for limited use based on the tests selected by Searle. After the approval, the FDA learned that some of Searle’s other products had serious side effects. Also, a study done by Dr. John Olney, research psychiatrist from the Washington School of Medicine, revealed that holes in the brains of mice appeared after the consumption of aspartic acid, a major ingredient in aspartame. This study was submitted to the FDA after they had already approved aspartame for limited use. This new evidence prompted the FDA to organize an internal Task Force to investigate Searle’s original research (7-8).

    In their investigation, the FDA 1975 Task Force reviewed a study done for Searle in 1969 by Dr. Harry Waisman, Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Wisconsin. The study involved feeding aspartame mixed with milk to seven infant monkeys. After 300 days, five monkeys had gran mal seizures and one died. Dr. Waisman died before all of his studies were completed. The Task Force uncovered that when Searle had submitted the Waisman study to the FDA, all the negative data had been omitted (The Deadly Deception 6-7).

    The Task Force also discovered that questionable lab practices had been performed by researchers from Searle. In a summary of their investigation, the Task Force concluded:

    We have uncovered serious deficiencies in Searle’s integrity in conducting high quality animal research to accurately determine or characterize the toxic potential of its products. . . . The cumulative findings of problems within and across the studies we investigated reveal a pattern of conduct which compromises the scientific integrity of the studies. (Qtd. in The Deadly Deception 8-9).

    This investigation revealed that Searle researchers had cut out tumors in animals that had been fed aspartame and neglected to report all of them or check for cancer. Also, animals that were “reported as dead, were later reported alive again” (The Deadly Deception 9).

    Other findings of the Task Force included “falsified data” from another Searle product, the Copper 7-IUD, a birth control device. This product had to be pulled off the shelves due to a $9,000,000 lawsuit. Searle lost even though they claimed the IUD was safe (The Deadly Deception 8).

    As a result of the findings of the 1975 Task Force, a smaller Task Force was assigned in 1977 to investigate Searle’s original research even further. This investigation uncovered that Searle had again falsified data by submitting inaccurate blood tests. Apparently, they had substituted unrelated animal tests because of instrument problems. In another study, a closer look revealed that uterine tumors had developed in some test animals. Searle “admitted” that these tumors were related to the ingestion of a breakdown product of aspartame, Diketopiperazine (The Deadly Deception 10).

    Due to the 1977 Task Force findings, FDA ordered a grand jury investigation of Searle’s aspartame studies. Assistant U.S. Attorney, William Conlon, and U.S. Attorney, Thomas Sullivan, failed to start any legal action against Searle concerning aspartame testing. Consequently, time ran out and the grand jury investigation terminated. Conlon was then hired by the law firm that represented Searle. It is interesting to note that this was not the first time Searle had been involved in a grand jury investigation. They had been accused of unreported tumors in the testing of their two drugs, Flagyl and Aldactone (The Deadly Deception 10-11).

    According to an article in Technology Review, aspartame came up for approval again in 1980. This time the FDA recommended that a Public Board of Inquiry be created to determine aspartame’s safety. The Board was composed of three scientists. They “recommended keeping aspartame off the market until further animal tests could show that it did not cause tumors” (Farber 53).

    The disapproval of aspartame by the Public Board of Inquiry wasn’t enough. The Deadly Deception states that a five member Commissioner’s Team of Scientists was then formed to look at the results of the Public Board of Inquiry conclusions. Three scientists voted against approval and two scientists voted for approval. Inexplicably, a sixth member joined the team with a vote of “yes” to the approval of aspartame creating a deadlock. Dr. Goyan, the FDA Commissioner, decided not to approve aspartame at this time (13, 16).

    In April of 1981, Dr. Arthur Hayes became the new Commissioner. Searle applied again for approval of aspartame. A few months later, Dr. Hayes approved aspartame for use in dry foods. In 1983, he approved aspartame for use in diet soft drinks (The Deadly Deception 14-15). One month later, Dr. Hayes left the FDA and within three months he was working for Searle’s advertising agency, Burson-Marsteller (Farber 53).

    Aspartame’s history of approval speaks for itself. The Searle company, whose sales were 700 million in 1992 (Therrien 42), had much to gain from the approval of aspartame. After researching their own product, Searle selectively chose the tests and then submitted them to the FDA. How can Searle, the company who stands to profit, determine which reports are to be given to the FDA? An instant bias is created when this is allowed to happen. Even when independent researchers, such as Olney and Waisman, were approached by Searle to conduct safety tests, Searle withheld important information that these researchers had discovered. The Searle company’s effort to produce a clear picture on the safety of aspartame is at best a weak attempt. Falsified data, unscientific lab practices, and a history of problems with some of their other products makes it hard to believe that Searle’s concern for the public’s health takes precedence over financial gains.

    The FDA should be the objective source to verify if Searle’s research is valid. The FDA has the final approval and the public depends on them to determine the safety of a product. In this particular case, the repeated reviewing of aspartame studies by forming two task forces, a Public Board of Inquiry, and two teams of scientists seems redundant if not suspicious. The research indicating tumors and falsifying of data resurfaced every time. It appears that all of these attempts were to ultimately get aspartame approved, not to determine it’s safety. If the FDA had been really concerned, they should have insisted on reviewing all of the original research before it was approved for limited use in 1974. Even if the FDA’s repeated attempts to investigate aspartame’s safety were legitimate, ultimately, it was Commissioner Hayes’ responsibility to determine if this product should enter the market. When he approved aspartame, it was more than questionable if his intentions were sincere. His employment with FDA was just long enough to get aspartame approved and then he conveniently quit and was hired by a Searle related company! How can we rely on the FDA to make the right decisions concerning aspartame approval if we are suspicious of their motives?

    How does all this relate to the safety of aspartame? First we must explore what safe means. The FDA defines safe as a “reasonable certainty of no harm” (Farber 48). Searle’s evaluation of aspartame’s safety was compromised when they withheld negative data and supplied inaccurate test results. Without valid research, “reasonable certainty of no harm” is difficult to determine. How can aspartame be on the market if the FDA and Searle failed to determine whether it was safe or not?

    Brain tumors and seizures in aspartame-fed animals indicate a possible risk to humans. The dictionary definition of safe means “not presenting or involving any danger or risk” (Webster’s 877). Does this mean aspartame is not safe? The answer lies in the hands of the public. Although aspartame was not tested on humans before its approval, it now has been tested on the public by default. Over 200 million Americans consume aspartame products (Weininger 1/ZZ1). We have been the guinea pigs in the testing of aspartame without even knowing it. A look at aspartame’s ingredients and its devastating effects on human beings provide the evidence for avoiding all aspartame products.


  5. “Exactly What Is Splenda?

    Sucralose (Splenda) is a chlorocarbon – a chlorine-containing compound. Testing of sucralose revealed organ, genetic and reproductive damage. Research on lab rats showed up to forty percent shrinkage of the thymus gland, a gland that is the very foundation of our immune system.

    Sucralose is patented as a manmade “chlorinated sucrose sweetener” and it is registered as “chlorinated sucrose.” Chlorinated sucrose is not found anywhere in nature, like real sugar (sucrose) that is extracted from sugar cane and sugar beets. Chlorinated sucrose exists because of man. This is Splenda.

    Why Is Splenda® Potentially Harmful?

    Splenda contains the carcinogen, chlorine. Splenda marketers insist the chlorine is “chemically bound” so it cannot be released into the body during digestion. I question this and wonder if this artificial chemical can really safely pass through the human body.

    Splenda (made from sucralose) is created in the lab using a complex process involving dozens of chemicals you and I can barely pronounce – let alone consume.  Basically, the chemists force chlorine into an unnatural chemical bond with a sugar molecule, resulting in a sweeter product, but at a price: a huge amount of artificial chemicals must be added to keep sucralose from digesting in our bodies. These toxic substances also prevent (hopefully) the dangerous chlorine molecules from detaching from the sugar molecule inside the digestive system, which would be a carcinogenic hazard.

    According to the Splenda International Patent A23L001-236 and PEP Review #90-1-4 (July 1991), sucralose is synthesized by a five-step process.
    To illustrate the alarming “chemical soup” required to create sucralose, I have listed the chemicals used to produce this sweetener and to secure the chlorine does NOT digest in your body.

    1.    Acetone
    2.    Acetic acid
    3.    Acetyl alcohol
    4.    Acetic anhydride
    5.    Ammonium chloride
    6.    Benzene
    7.    Chlorinated sulfates
    8.    Ethyl alcohol
    9.    Isobutyl ketones
    10.    Formaldehyde
    11.    Hydrogen chloride
    12.    Lithium chloride
    13.    Methanol
    14.    Sodium methoxide
    15.    Sulfuryl chloride
    16.    Trityl chloride
    17.    Toluene
    18.    Thionyl chloride”

    ( and

  6. (Continuation of above Dr. Hull web site articles)

    “Is Splenda Safe For Children?

    Have your kids been out of sorts lately? Do they complain of more frequent tummy aches, malaise, mood swings or aggression? Have you read the labels on what they are eating at home, at school and away from the house?

    “Consumption of even moderate amounts of aspartame during pregnancy may produce a dramatic increase in the number of children born with diminished brain function,” warned Diana Dow-Edwards, PhD research scientist, SUNY Health Science Center, Brooklyn, NY. Dow-Edward’s research began in the mid-1980s, but her early warnings of aspartame’s harmful effects on fetuses during pregnancy have fallen upon deaf ears. With the rapid rise in mental illness amongst children, ADHD and hyperactivity, depression and lower IQs, why hasn’t research such as Dow-Edward’s been considered as a probable cause for rising mental disease among modern children? Parents should be properly warned that artificial sweeteners may cause birth defects and mental retardation if used at the time of conception and early pregnancy.

    Err on the side of caution when it comes to a fetus and maturing child. Children are especially at risk for neurological disorders and should NOT be fed aspartame, sucralose, acesulfame K, or the other chemical sugar substitutes.

    I can relate many case histories of children having mal seizures and other mental disturbances while using NutraSweet®. Unfortunately, it is not always easy to convince a mother that diet sweeteners may be to blame for her child’s illnesses. Only by her own trial and error will she be able to warn other mothers to take their children’s health into their own hands and avoid the advertisements claiming product safety.

    Splenda manufacturers did admit: “One should note, however, that foods made with low-calorie sweeteners are not normally a recommended part of a child’s diet, since calories are important to a growing child’s body.”

    Pay attention to this statement…. Children should not be encouraged to grow up on fake foods but, just like with cigarettes and alcohol, “do what I say, not what I do.” Yet, we wonder why the younger generation is angry, ill, and ridden with ADHD, depression, hypoglycemia and diabetes. How many kids do you see taking a sip of mom’s diet cola or chewing a stick of dad’s sugar-free gum?

    Children raised on chemical diets are more likely to develop physical and mental disorders and, as Dow-Edwards predicted, the evidence is surfacing at epidemic levels in America and other developed countries using chemical sugar substitutes.”



    By James Bowen, M.D.
    Posted: 08 May 2005

    James Bowen, M.D., A physician, biochemist, and survivor of aspartame poisoning warns about yet another synthetic sweetener, Splenda.

    Hawaii, May 8, 2005 — The chemical sucralose, marketed as “Splenda”, has replaced aspartame as the #1 artificial sweetener in foods and beverages. Aspartame has been forced out by increasing public awareness that it is both a neurotoxin and an underlying cause of chronic illness worldwide. Dr. James Bowen, Researcher and biochemist, reports:

    “Splenda/sucralose is simply chlorinated sugar; a chlorocarbon. Common chlorocarbons include carbon tetrachloride, trichlorethelene and methylene chloride, all deadly. Chlorine is nature’s Doberman attack dog, a highly excitable, ferocious atomic element employed as a biocide in bleach, disinfectants, insecticide, WWI poison gas and hydrochloric acid.

    “Sucralose is a molecule of sugar chemically manipulated to surrender three hydroxyl groups (hydrogen + oxygen) and replace them with three chlorine atoms. Natural sugar is a hydrocarbon built around 12 carbon atoms. When turned into Splenda it becomes a chlorocarbon, in the family of Chlorodane, Lindane and DDT.

    “It is logical to ask why table salt, which also contains chlorine, is safe while Splenda/sucralose is toxic? Because salt isn’t a chlorocarbon. When molecular chemistry binds sodium to chlorine to make salt carbon isn’t included. Sucralose and salt are as different as oil and water.

    “Unlike sodium chloride, chlorocarbons are never nutritionally compatible with our metabolic processes and are wholly incompatible with normal human metabolic functioning. When chlorine is chemically reacted into carbon-structured organic compounds to make chlorocarbons, the carbon and chlorine atoms bind to each other by mutually sharing electrons in their outer shells. This arrangement adversely affects human metabolism because our mitochondrial and cellular enzyme systems are designed to completely utilize organic molecules containing carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and other compatible nutritional elements.

    “By this process chlorocarbons such as sucralose deliver chlorine directly into our cells through normal metabolization. This makes them effective insecticides and preservatives. Preservatives must kill anything alive to prevent bacterial decomposition.”

    Dr. Bowen believes ingested chlorocarbon damage continues with the formation of other toxins: “Any chlorocarbons not directly excreted from the body intact can cause immense damage to the processes of human metabolism and, eventually, our internal organs. The liver is a detoxification organ which deals with ingested poisons. Chlorocarbons damage the hepatocytes, the liver’s metabolic cells, and destroy them.

    In test animals Splenda produced swollen livers, as do all chlorocarbon poisons, and also calcified the kidneys of test animals in toxicity studies. The brain and nervous system are highly subject to metabolic toxicities and solvency damages by these chemicals. Their high solvency attacks the human nervous system and many other body systems including genetics and the immune function. Thus, chlorocarbon poisoning can cause cancer, birth defects, and immune system destruction. These are well known effects of Dioxin and PCBs which are known deadly chlorocarbons.”

    Dr. Bowen continues: “Just like aspartame, which achieved marketplace approval by the Food and Drug Administration when animal studies clearly demonstrated its toxicity, sucralose also failed in clinical trials with animals. Aspartame created brain tumors in rats. Sucralose has been found to shrink thymus glands (the biological seat of immunity) and produce liver inflammation in rats and mice.

    “In the coming months we can expect to see a river of media hype expounding the virtues of Splenda/sucralose. We should not be fooled again into accepting the safety of a toxic chemical on the blessing of the FDA and saturation advertising. In terms of potential long-term human toxicity we should regard sucralose with its chemical cousin DDT, the insecticide now outlawed because of its horrendous long term toxicities at even minute trace levels in human, avian, and mammalian tissues.

    “Synthetic chemical sweeteners are generally unsafe for human consumption. This toxin was given the chemical name “sucralose” which is a play on the technical name of natural sugar, sucrose. One is not the other. One is food, the other is toxic; don’t be deceived.”

    Dr. Bowen also calls attention to another seldom recognized and deadly permanent effect of these chemicals: “Aspartame, sold as NutraSweet, Equal, E951, Canderel, Benevia and under other names, is a hypersensitization agent which causes Polychemical Sensitivity syndrome. Chlorocarbons strongly induce uncurable hypersensitivity diseases which are now becoming rampant.” (James Bowen, M.D.)

    Doctor Bowen has spent 20 years researching artificial sweeteners after his use of aspartame resulted in being diagnosed with Lou Gehrig’s disease. Dr Bowen’s intention is to warn the world of the toxicity of tabletop poisons like aspartame, Splenda and Neotame.”


  8. “Sucralose — Adverse Effects Seen in Research

    The following adverse effects from sucralose have been reported in research findings:

    Shrunken thymus glands (up to 40% shrinkage) (EO56)
    Enlarged liver and kidneys. (EO57 & E161)
    Atrophy of lymph follicles in the spleen and thymus (EO51, EO56, EO151)
    Increased cecal weight (E151)
    Reduced growth rate (EO57)
    Decreased red blood cell count (EO55)
    Hyperplasia of the pelvis (EO57)
    Aborted pregnancy (Maternal & Fetal Toxicity) (E134)
    Decreased fetal body weights and placental weights (EO32)
    Increase glycosylation of hemoglobin (HbA1c) for diabetics (E157) (Note: One of the effects of increased HbA1c is Cardiac Mortality.)

    The manufacturer claimed that the sucralose was unpleasant for the rodents to eat in large doses. They said that starvation caused the shruken thymus glands. From the New Scientist (23 Nov 1991, pg 13):

    “[Toxicologist Judith] Bellin reviewed studies on rats starved under experimental conditions, and concluded that their growth rate could be reduced by as much as a third without the thymus losing a significant amount of weight (less than 7 percent). The changes were much more marked between 7 and 20 percent, their thymuses shrank by as much as 40 percent.”

    Some may ask: “Where can I find published results of the above-reference adverse effects?” These adverse effects where seen in pre-approval research conducted by the manufacturer of sucralose. The number after the adverse effect listed above is the number of the pre-approval study. For obvious reasons, the manufacturer chose to publish only the research that puts sucralose in a good light and not the studies listed above. Some information related to these studies can be found in the FDA Final Rule where the FDA advocates for the manufacturer.

    In summary:

    Pre-approval research indicated toxicity of sucralose.
    We can trust the manufacturer to do whatever they can to avoid publishing any negative information about sucralose in the scientific literature.

    There are no independent controlled human studies on sucralose (similar to 20 years ago for aspartame).
    There are no long-term (12-24 months) human studies of sucralose’s effects.

    There is no monitoring of health effects. It took government agencies decades to agree that there were countless thousands of deaths from tobacco. Why? Simply because there had been no monitoring or epidemiological studies. Without such monitoring and studies, numerous serious adverse effects can easily go unnoticed. So, without even addressing the pre-approval research showing potential toxicity, it is clear that sucralose has a) no long history (e.g., decades) of safe use, b) no independent monitoring of health effects, c) no long-term human studies, and d) no independent human studies. I would hope that the Precautionary Principle, now commonly used in Europe, would be a guiding force for people who are interested in health. Otherwise, we might as well just use any toxic chlorocarbon as a food additive and even go back to using the highly toxic lead acetate as a sugar substitute.”


  9. I don’t know about mice studies, but I do know that when aspartine first came out, I thought, wow, a safe substitute for sugar. I then proceeded to purchase between 1/2-1lb of hard candies made with this sugar substitute. I gobbled them up, popping one after the other into my system. About halfway through I developed intense diaharria. Since that was the only healthy food i had eaten that afternoon,I was able to deduce the connection between the two. I stopped eating the candies, and the diaharria disappeared. A few weeks later, my appeitite for sweets got control of me and I , not wanting to be guilty of Baal tashkitz, devoured remaining ration of hard candies( they tasted really good). The same thing happened ;within a hour or too, I developed intense diaharria ( that was like water). As you all can figure out that was the last time aspartine has been a part of my life.
    NEVER AGAIN will I subject my body to that chemical!!!