Presentation on theme: "Artificial sweeteners ENVR80 Nov 1, 2005. 1878, Saccharin discovered by C. Fahlberg in Remsen’s laboratory, Johns Hopkins 1885 Saccharin first introduced."— Presentation transcript:
Artificial sweeteners ENVR80 Nov 1, 2005
1878, Saccharin discovered by C. Fahlberg in Remsen’s laboratory, Johns Hopkins 1885 Saccharin first introduced at Antwerp Trade Fair as a cheap and readily-available substitute for sugar Manufactured from chlorosulphonation of toluene (Remsen-Fahlberg process) or by Maunee process starting from anthranilic acid Sodium salt 300 x as sweet as sugar
The Poison Squad
Daily intake of 0.15 to 0.75 g over five months had no effect on healthy young men. “Impairment of digestive functions” observed at 3 g/day 8.4 mg/kg/day (0.588 g/day) consumed by diabetics (Armstrong & Doll, 1975)
“Anyone who says saccharin is injurious to health is an idiot” Theodore Roosevelt (26 th President of the USA, )
1958 Food Additives Amendment Generally Regarded As Safe Delaney Clause
The Delaney Clause No Food Additive Shall be Deemed to be Safe if it is Found to Induce Cancer when Ingested by Man or Animals, or if it is Found, After Tests which Are Appropriate for the Evaluation of the Safety of Food Additives, to Induce Cancer in Man or Animals
1947: Cyclamate discovered (Na + or Ca + salt of cyclohexylsulphamic acid) Only about 30 x as sweet as sugar Marketed in combination (10:1) with saccharin Toxicology studies
1968 Cyclamate removed from GRAS list –Bladder tumors found in rats fed 2.5 g/kg/day cyclamate/saccharin 10:1 mixture for 2 years 1971 Saccharin removed from GRAS list pending further study Bladder tumors in rats fed saccharin alone –5% of diet, WARF, 100 weeks, several generations –7.5% of diet, US FDA, 3-generation –810 mg/kg/day for 26 months (Munro et al., 1975) (2430 mg/kg/day negative) –Also co-carcinogenic with MNU (Hicks et al., 1973, 1975)
1977 Saccharin Study and Labeling Act Saccharin Warning "Use of this product may be hazardous to your health. This product contains saccharin which has been determined to cause cancer in laboratory animals."
1996 Saccharin Notice Repeal Act
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Oct. 31, 1997 NIEHS PR #23-97 NIEHS CONTACT: Bill Grigg, 919/ Tom Hawkins, 919/ NTP: Sandy Lange, 919/ Panel Recommends That Saccharin Remain on U.S. List of Carcinogens The National Toxicology Program's advisory panel on the federal government's Report on Carcinogens today recommended the continued listing of saccharin in the ninth edition of this official report of cancer-causing substances. Saccharin thus may continue to be listed as an "anticipated" human carcinogen, as it has been since It has never been listed in the stronger category of "known" human carcinogen
Repeal of Saccharin Warning Label Criticized Michael F. Jacobson, Ph.D., executive director of the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest, had the following comment on Congress' repeal of the warning label on saccharin-containing products. Lawmakers generally oppose legislating through the appropriations process, which does not allow for substantive inquiries and hearings. But apparently Congress had no qualms about skipping hearings and using the Health and Human Services Appropriations Bill (HR 4577) to eliminate the warning label on products containing saccharin.
Not mutagenic Is not metabolized Is rapidly eliminated from the body Does not form DNA adducts Numerous negative animal studies Negative human epi studies (Armstrong & Doll, 1975)
« The Onion« The Onion | 11/5/2003 Americans Demand Increased Governmental Protection From Selves NEW YORK—Alarmed by the unhealthy choices they make every day, more and more Americans are calling on the government to enact legislation that will protect them from their own behavior. "The government is finally starting to take some responsibility for the effect my behavior has on others," said New York City resident Alec Haverchuk, 44, who is prohibited by law from smoking in restaurants and bars. "But we have a long way to go. I can still light up on city streets and in the privacy of my own home. I mean, legislators acknowledge that my cigarette smoke could give others cancer, but don't they care about me, too?" "It's not just about Americans eating too many fries or cracking their skulls open when they fall off their bicycles," said Los Angeles resident Rebecca Burnie, 26. "It's a financial issue, too. I spend all my money on trendy clothes and a nightlife that I can't afford. I'm $23,000 in debt, but the credit-card companies keep letting me spend. It's obscene that the government allows those companies to allow me to do this to myself. Why do I pay my taxes?"