Cancer & The Artificial Sweetener Connection

Artificial Sweetener CancerArtificial Sweetener Cancer – What is The Connection? I remember reading a health based article that examined the dietary habits of Americans in the 1950’s compared to today. The article focused on the alarming rates of obesity in relation to food consumption. The author went on to state that in the earlier generations, Americans did not consume less quantities of food compared to modern day Americans. It was simply the choices available with more fresh non-GMO foods as opposed to today’s rampant artificial or synthetic versions, packed with unknown additives created by the Big Pharma companies.

One area of extreme scrutiny concerns the application and explosion of artificial sweeteners which are extremely dubious substances and are common in diets today. Unfortunately, they have been linked to side effects such as cancer, birth defects, seizures, behavior issues, anemia, migraines, depression, sexual and thyroid dysfunction, and numerous other conditions.

Marketing suspiciously labels them as low-caloric or zero-calorie based on studies suggesting aspartame, sucralose are non-nutritive sugars indicating they are impossible or difficult for the body to metabolize. What is not metabolized will not be absorbed, or used by the body for energy, or stored as fat. Since they are intended to pass right through your digestive tract without any impact, the calories of these artificial sugars don’t count in terms of your diet, in turn making them low or zero calorie.

The Cancer Connection

One major cause for concern regarding the extended use of any artificial and synthetically produced additives, is the potential long term health risks. In the USA, this obviously centers around cancer which is one of the primary epidemics facing modern society. However, according to Dr. John Seffrin, the Chief Executive Officer of the American Cancer Society, cancer is potentially the most preventable and treatable disease on the planet today. Even so, a foundation understanding of cancer, it’s causes and treatments is mandatory in grasping the connection to dietary concerns and food additives such as artificial sweeteners.

One area of concern in the battle against cancer, lies in taking a proactive stance regarding prevention. One such measure can involve starving cancer cells by avoiding consumption of certain foods, which cancer cells generally require to multiply and spread. One such substance is sugar and it’s synthetic variants, artificial sweeteners.

Aspartame, saccharin and sucralose are some of the most toxic sugar substitutes currently available. Splenda or sucralose is made from normal sugar which has been chlorinated, producing a host of chlorine bi-products, including dioxins and other organochlorines. Dioxins contribute to cancers, hormone imbalance, birth defects, infertility, and they suppress the immune system.

Some independent research has been conducted into the official corporate backed early findings, which contradict the regulation of such substances for consumer consumption. However, the bottom line is that sugar is a cancer feeding substance. As a result, the elimination of sugar will in turn cut off the essential food supply which is feeding cancer cells. This in turn includes the long term usage of artificial sweeteners as a dietary supplement.

The elimination or reduction of a sugar enriched environment is only one aspect in a proactive battle against cancer. Many other common everyday items such as diary, table salt and red meat are equally harmful when consumed over time. The following is a list of products I have used as a substitute for the more harmful commercially available product.

Splenda has NEVER Been Proven Safe for Human Consumption

Artificial Sweetener CancerDid you know that only two human trials on sucralose were completed and published prior to the FDA approving Splenda for human consumption? And these two trials included a total of 36 human subjects. Worse yet, the longest running trial lasted only four days, and looked at sucralose in relation to tooth decay, not human tolerance. As for determining the absorption of Splenda into the human body, a mere eight men were studied. Based on that singular human study, the FDA allowed the findings to be generalized as being representative of and regarded as “safe” for the entire human population.

You’ve probably heard the claims that the FDA has reviewed over 100 studies on Splenda and are satisfied that it’s a safe product, but what you don’t hear is that most of those studies were on animals, and that they actually revealed plenty of problems! For example, some of these studies revealed:

  • Decreased red blood cells – sign of anemia – at levels above 1,500 mg/kg/day
  • Increased male infertility by interfering with sperm production and vitality, as well as brain lesions at higher doses
  • Enlarged and calcified kidneys
  • Spontaneous abortions in nearly half the rabbit population given sucralose, compared to zero aborted pregnancies in the control group
  • A 23 percent death rate in rabbits, compared to a six percent death rate in the control group

Sucralose is NOT some magical calorie-free sugar, despite Splenda’s famous slogan, “Made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar.” It is in fact a chlorinated artificial sweetener cooked up in a factory, and scores of consumers have testified to its devastating effects. It does start off as a sugar molecule – to which three chlorine molecules are added. At the end of the patented process, the chemical composition of the sugar has been altered to the point that it’s actually closer to DDT and Agent Orange than sugar.

This type of “sugar” molecule does not occur anywhere in nature, and therefore your body cannot properly metabolize it. This is why Splenda is advertised as having “zero calories”- because your body cannot digest or metabolize it. Essentially, it passes right through you. Or at least that’s the claim. However, according to the available research, between 11-27 percent of sucralose is in fact absorbed into your digestive system, and according to the study mentioned above, it is also absorbed into your fat cells.

The question then becomes, just what kind of impact might a DDT- or Agent Orange-like molecule have on your health?

Furthermore, few people realize that only about one percent of that packet of Splenda is actually sucralose. The remaining 99 percent is maltodextrin – a type of sugar! Each packet actually has four calories, but because the amount of sugar is less than one gram, they get away with saying it has “no calories” due to a loophole in the labeling law.

Avoiding sugar is a crucial component of a healthy lifestyle, but, instead of consuming a naturally low-sugar diet based on whole foods, some people are still trying to have their cake and eat it too. Unfortunately, the belief that artificial sweeteners can allow you to have the best of both worlds is a carefully orchestrated deception. So if you’re still consuming artificially sweetened foods, snacks and beverages because you think it’ll help you manage your weight, please understand that you’ve been sorely misled.

In reality, “diet” foods and drinks destroy your body’s ability to count calories and actually promote weight gain. For example, drinking diet sodas has been found to double your risk of obesity! Complicating matters further, artificial sweeteners also appear to be highly addictive. It’s important to understand that sugar cravings is typically a sign that your body needs fuel. Using artificial sweeteners will NOT trick your body into thinking it has had its fill. Instead, artificial sweeteners can increase sweet cravings because your body didn’t get the energy boost it was expecting from that sweet taste.

Read the complete article by Dr. Mercola here

Healthy Substitutes

  • Artificial sweeteners which are sugar substitutes contain Aspartame. Many of these are commonly known as NutraSweet, Sweet N’ Low or Equal. A more healthy substitute would be Manuka honey or a variety of molasses and only a small amount would only be required.
  • Excessive dairy consumption produces mucus in the gastro-intestinal tract. Unfortunately, cancer cells will feed on this mucus. The elimination of dairy products such as regular milk and substituting with unsweetened soy milk is a more healthy option.
  • Table salt has a chemical added for bleaching purposes. Unfortunately, most table salt is not only unhealthy, but is toxic to the body and should never be considered as a source of healthy iodine. A Better alternative is Bragg’s Liquid Aminos or sea salt.
  • Cancer cells thrive in an acid environment. A red meat based diet creates a heavily acidic state. A more healthy substitute is based on seafood (Tuna is one easy option) This canned tuna has an excellent taste and the texture is far superior to typical “supermarket” chunk light canned brands.
  • Avoid high caffeine beverages such as coffee, tea, and chocolate based. Green tea is a better alternative which has cancer fighting properties, cardiovascular benefits and helps curb obesity issues in relation to appetite.
  • Various supplements can be taken to boost the immune system. Especially anti-oxidants, vitamins and minerals which enable the bodies own innate killer cells to destroy potential new cancer cells from developing.

Artificial Sweetener CancerUntil enough medically approved, independent and unbiased research on long-term studies is done, no one can be certain. As a result, the health implications will remain unknown for possibly decades. As with all things, time will unveil truth and the logical common sense solution is to decrease the use of harmful foods or to eliminate them completely from your diet.

Being proactive means keeping abreast of any recent studies and medical findings as well as informative articles that counter the potential main stream media bias. It is essential to remember that there is a union between corporate profit and the interests of mass publishing, especially when both are privately owned or funded from the same source. Finding unbiased studies becomes a difficult task in light of corporations such as Monsanto or G.D. Searle & Company, who via sheer wealth and media contacts, can control the dissemination of biased so-called scientific reports.

As a result, you will find many advocates who are potential corporate shills, paid lackeys attempting to thwart any opposition to the corporate giant’s agenda, by profiting on potential sub-standard products mass marketed to unsuspecting consumers. In such a case, I would prefer to err on the side of caution. After all, if even the FDA and USDA can be accused of corruption based on profit over people, what chance does a privately owned corporation stand under the scrutiny of people over profit.