To each his own poison, eh? :-)
Keith.
Three quick points and then I have to get back to work.
First, although acrolein and saccharin may both Group 3 compounds
according to IARC, you yourself pointed out that the *reasons* for
which they recieved that label are very very different.
Logically, saying "we don't have enough evidence in animal models or
humans to know if this causes cancer", as occurs with acrolein, is
worlds apart from saying "we have plenty of evidence this causes a
specific type of bladder cancer in a specific type of rat, but this
mechanism cannot occur in humans", as occurs with saccharin. They
may both be in Group 3 but the reasons why are is as different as
night and day.
Yes, I realise they're there for different reasons, and I'm far from
sure either of them should be there. I don't place any more trust in
so-called health authorities than you do in the CSPI and Mercola -
they screw up far more often than those two do, and often for far
more reprehensible reasons. No need to argue about that, it's a
matter of a large amount of public record.
Second, as far as public health goes, the massive rise in high
fructose corn syrup use concerns me far more than the use of high
intensity sweeteners like saccharin, sucralose, or aspartame quite
frankly. Nothing inherently wrong with HFCS itself,
No?
but obesity related diseases resulting from excessive caloric intake
are a much bigger threat to public health than high-intensity
sweeteners.
I don't think you checked the ref I gave you to Cleave's book.
Surgeon Captain T.L. Cleave was Director of Medical Research at the
Royal Naval Medical School and an excellent scientist. He would not
agree with you that there's nothing wrong with HFCS.
Not to mention this:
It was rigged in various ways of course, but the rise of high
fructose corn syrup knocked the US sugar price down by about 80% in
a very short time - not long after large numbers of 3rd World sugar
farmers had been persuaded by the World Bank to mechanise and
capitalise on the strength of a strong US market, and given loans to
do it. That caused mass starvation in some areas, and the results
have been long-lived. I've seen it: "Growth area?? The only growth
area around here is in little coffins." Child-sized ones.
Regarding Cleave's work, this is another point, I wanted to respond
on it recently when Ken questioned the scientific method:
I always wonder myself whether the "scientific method" as
we've come to know it hasn't narrowed itself a bit too far.
Scientists were saying that 75 years ago, and proving it, and it's 75
years more true today.
To that we must add the fact that "science" today is too often bought
and paid for, in a very wide variety of ways, with the predictable
results - also too well-documented to merit arguing about.
Beyond that there's the capacity of the science establishment simply
to ignore scientific contributions it finds inconvenient, no matter
how watertight the scientific work in question may be. Howard, Price,
McCarrison, excellent scientists, and many others (including Cleave),
expected that their work would upset a few applecarts so they were
most rigorous about it - Price especially provided a massive overkill
of evidence that made his case inarguable. What none of them appears
to have realised was that there was no need to argue it - it was just
ignored, sidelined into obscurity.
Worse than that can happen. In the 70s and 80s it was as much as
scientist's career was worth to try to focus on organic agriculture,
for instance. Ask David Quist and Ignacio Chapela, or Arnad Pusztai,
among others whether much has changed. See, for instance:
http://wwia.org/pipermail/biofuel/Week-of-Mon-20050117/004906.html
[Biofuel] Enemy of the state
Science has become not very scientific, not even honest.
If someone is gonna drink 2 cans of coke a day either way without
increasing their physical activity, I'd far rather see them drink
diet than consume an extra 8400 calories a month.
I suppose, if you're into damage limitation rather than damage
prevention. Sounds to me a bit like a choice between cigarettes and
cigars (worse, yes, I know, but perhaps a similarly poor range of
choices).
Third, while I think of it, the Feb 14th issue of The Scientist has
a really nice article on public policy, dose-response dogma, and the
institutionalized choice of linear or threshold models over hormetic
models. It's worth reading if you can track down a copy.
Thanks John... but there's this huge pile of stuff here, it's a real
problem for me. :-( But I'll try.
Regards
Keith
jh
Keith Addison wrote:
Hello John
We tend to make a lot of fuss over acrolein fumes from burning
glyc, apparently with good reason, but the IARC says the same about
acrolein, also Group 3:
Evaluation
There is inadequate evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of acrolein.
There is inadequate evidence in experimental animals for the
carcinogenicity of acrolein.
Overall evaluation
Acrolein is not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans (Group 3).
http://www.inchem.org/documents/iarc/vol63/acrolein.html
I think I'll avoid acrolein just the same, thankyou.
As for CSPI and Mercola, I don't think either of them grinds axes,
whereas the authorities we're supposed to entrust our health to
most certainly do, and not on our behalf, contrary to their claims.
Neither CSPI nor Mercola can be painted with such a broad brush.
That they might not stay within the confines of the conventional
wisdom is all to the good - essential, in fact. Where they might be
grinding axes I prefer the side they might err on - mine, rather
than say Monsanto's.
Saccarin? Naah. Sugar, also naah.
The Saccharine Disease: Conditions caused by the Taking of Refined
Carbohydrates, such as Sugar and White Flour by T. L. Cleave, 1974
http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library.html#cleave
Don't need it. If you really need a safe sweetener, vegetable
glycerine or stevia is the way to go. We do also use small amounts
of good-quality honey, molasses, maple syrup on occasion, but it's
easy to dump a sweet tooth.
Best wishes
Keith
Ken Riznyk wrote:
Dear Eagle,
I was not advocating the use of the little pink
packets that contain saccahrin which indeed is a
carcinogenic. Splenda comes in yellow packets. As far
a reading about food products on the internet I'll
trust the Center for Science in the Public Interest,
before I'll listen to someone making a fortune selling
books containing nutritional scare stories.
First, CSPI is little better than Mercola. I wouldn't trust either of them.
Second, saccharin in NOT a carcinogen in humans. We've been over
this before. http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/BIOFUEL/25027/
It causes cancer in male rats by a mechanism that *does* *not* *exist*
in humans. Briefly, at high doses, saccharin alters the chemistry of rat
urine, resulting in the formation of a precipitate. This precipitate
damages the cells lining the bladder of the rat ("urinary bladder
urothelial cytotoxicity"). Consequently, a tumor forms when the cells
lining the bladder regenerate ("regenerative hyperplasia".)
Simply put, the chemistry that causes this to occur is unique to the rat
and does not occur in humans, mice or primates. Moreover, even in rats,
formation of this precipitate requires high doses of saccharin,
somewhere around the order of 3% of dietary intake.
According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of
the World Health Organization, "Saccharin and its salts was downgraded
from Group 2B, possibly carcinogenic to humans, to Group 3, not
classifiable as to carcinogenicity to humans, despite sufficient
evidence of carcinogenicity to animals, because it is carcinogenic by a
non-DNA-reactive mechanism that is not relevant to humans because of
critical interspecies differences in urine composition."
In summary, the scientific community, as well as the American Cancer
Society, the American Dietetic Association, the American Medical
Association, the American Diabetes Association, and the IARC
believe saccharin does not present a health risk in humans.
The FDA was just a little behind the curve...
jh
--
John E Hayes, M.S.
Instructor, Dietetics Program, DIET 203 / DIET 215
Doctoral Student, Nutritional Sciences
University of Connecticut - 326 Koons Hall
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / 860.486.0007
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable):
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
