Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The artificial sweetener aspartame has been the subject of several controversies since its initial approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1974. The FDA approval of aspartame was highly contested, beginning with suspicions of its involvement in brain cancer, [1] alleging that the quality of the initial research supporting its safety was inadequate and flawed, and that ...
November 2005 Online publication of Soffritti "First Experimental Demonstration of the Multipotential Carcinogenic Effects of Aspartame Administered in the Feed to Sprague-Dawley Rats" [10] "The results of this mega-experiment indicate that [aspartame] is a multipotential carcinogenic agent, even at a daily dose of 20 mg/kg body weight, much less than the current acceptable daily intake."
In the United States, six high-intensity sugar substitutes have been approved for use: aspartame, sucralose, neotame, acesulfame potassium (Ace-K), saccharin and advantame. [3] Food additives must be approved by the FDA, [3] and sweeteners must be proven as safe via submission by a manufacturer of a GRAS document. [44]
A low-calorie sugar substitute, it was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1974 to be used as a tabletop sweetener and additive in breakfast cereals, among other foods.
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
Aspartame, an artificial sweetener approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 1981, is made of two amino acids, aspartic acid and phenylalanine, according to the FDA. Its full name is L ...
The PBOI concluded aspartame does not cause brain damage, but it recommended against approving aspartame at that time, citing unanswered questions about cancer in laboratory rats. [60]: 94–96 [61] In 1983, the FDA approved aspartame for use in carbonated beverages and for use in other beverages, baked goods, and confections in 1993. [9]
On the other hand, while PMID 27606602 *IS* a general review of sweeteners, this peer-reviewed source (which is PLOS One) also goes into detail on the aspartame controversy, on why the peer-reviewed article considers the methodology of the FDA *AND* the EFSA seriously flawed in regards to aspartame, both in how aspartame was originally ...