In: Nursing
Kindly research and present against the use of artificial sweeteners.
Besides its benefits, animal studies have convincingly proven
that artificial sweeteners cause weight gain, brain tumors, bladder
cancer and many other health hazards. Some kind of health related
side effects including carcinogenicity are also noted in humans.The
new study points out the EFSA panel discounted the results of every
single one of 73 studies that indicated that aspartame could be
harmful while treating 84% of studies providing no prima facie
evidence of harm as unproblematically reliable.Since 1974, studies
and scientists have warned of the risks of brain damage, liver and
lung cancer, brain lesions and neuroendocrine disorders from
consuming Nutrasweet, which is found in thousands of products
around the world including diet soft drinks.Prof Millstone, a
University of Sussex expert on food chemical safety policy, is
calling for the suspension of authorisation to sell or use
aspartame in the EU pending an independent and thorough
re-examination of relevant evidence including key documents that
Prof Millstone says were omitted from the dossier the panel
reviewed.He is also advocating a radical overhaul of EU food safety
processes including an end to behind closed door discussions.He
said: "Our analysis of the evidence shows that, if the benchmarks
the panel used to evaluate the results of reassuring studies had
been consistently used to evaluate the results of studies that
provided evidence that aspartame maybe unsafe then they would have
been obliged to conclude there was sufficient evidence to indicate
aspartame is not acceptably safe."This research adds weight to the
argument that authorisation to sell or use aspartame should be
suspended throughout the EU, including in the UK, pending a
thorough re-examination of all the evidence by a reconvened EFSA
that is able to satisfy critics and the public that they operate in
a fully transparent and accountable manner applying a fair and
consistent approach to evaluation and decision making."
Among the flaws in the study highlighted by the University of
Sussex research, the panel:-Breached EFSA guidelines on risk
assessment transparency on multiple grounds.Adopted a low-hurdle
for the acceptability of negative studies—including studies
previously dubbed "woefully inadequate" and "worthless" by
experts.Applied unreachably high hurdles for 'positive' studies
indicating adverse effects—even though many of those 73 studies
were far more reliable than most of the studies that provided no
indication of risk.Demonstrated puzzling anomalies including
inconsistent and unacknowledged assumptions.Prof Millstone, who
contributed a 30 document dossier to the 2013 proceedings detailing
the inadequacy of 15 early pivotal studies which the EFSA failed to
pass on to its scientific advisors, said: "It is clear from this
research that the EFSA scientists failed to acknowledge numerous
inadequacies in the reassuring studies but instead picked up on
tiny imperfections in all the studies providing evidence that
aspartame maybe unsafe."In my opinion, based on this research, the
question of whether commercial conflicts of interest may have
affected the panel's report can never be adequately ruled out
because all meetings all took place behind closed doors."Tim Lang,
Professor of Food Policy at City, University of London who was not
involved in the research, said: "The paper is both important and
timely. The global health advice is to reduce sugar intake, yet
much of the food industry especially soft drinks maintains the
sweetness by substituting artificial sweeteners. Millstone and
Dawson help expose that strategy for what it is, a continued
sweetening of the world's diet. The healthy strategy is surely to
tackle the cultural reinforcement of sweetness and to encourage
less sweet foods and drinks, full stop. Surely we now argue: reduce
both sugar and artificial alternatives."