home
RSS
EPA: Saccharin no longer considered a hazardous substance
December 14th, 2010
03:59 PM ET

EPA: Saccharin no longer considered a hazardous substance

Saccharin is in a lot of products you might use everyday.  It's in items like sugar-free gum, diet soda and mouthwash.  It's even in some of your pills. But now there's one less place where you can find the popular artificial sweetener. The Environmental Protection Agency is taking saccharin and its salts off its list of hazardous substances. According to the agency, the crystalline powder "is no longer considered a potential hazard to human health."

Saccharin was first listed as a hazardous waste in 1980 after studies in rats showed the sweetener caused higher rates of bladder cancer. The EPA subsequently determined it to be a "potential human carcinogen". Yet two decades later, the National Toxicology Program and International Agency for Research on Cancer reversed that classification after scientists failed to link saccharin consumption to cancer in humans.

Saccharin was removed from their listings of hazardous substances. The EPA has now followed suit, after a petition was filed earlier this year by the Calorie Control Council, an advocacy association that claims to represent the low-calorie food and beverage industry.

According to the EPA, saccharin is three hundred times sweeter than sugar. Today's decision is not expected to impact consumers. Indeed, the EPA says the only anticipated change will be in how waste from saccharin and its salts are managed, now that they are not considered to be hazardous.

The EPA's full list of hazardous substances is available online.


soundoff (143 Responses)
  1. wowlfie

    Anything is cancerous if you stuff enough of it into yourself. That's what the EPA does and it's ridiculous. The EPA is run by a bunch of morons who couldn't pass a basic high school chemistry exam.

    December 14, 2010 at 16:59 | Report abuse | Reply
    • kilroyfx

      Maybe no cancer, but eating artificial sweetners does perpetrate a lie to the body – saying here comes a bunch of calories to the stomach...and when the food or drink arrives there are no calories, this causes a change in how a person's metabolism functions. So when you finally do consume food with a lot of calories the body refuses to "fire" up the metabolism and you end up gaining a lot more weight.

      December 14, 2010 at 17:53 | Report abuse |
    • Nathan

      What is up with all the anti-intellectualism swirling about in mainstream conservative circles? It both surprises and depresses me

      :/

      December 14, 2010 at 18:50 | Report abuse |
    • Maria

      kilroy, your science is WAY off. What you eat isn't going to affect your metabolism. Your body doesn't "fire up" the metabolism when you ingest calories. Your body "fires up" the metabolism when you expend energy.

      December 14, 2010 at 19:34 | Report abuse |
    • me

      If you had taken a college biology class, you would know why you hear about the effects of what seem like huge doses. It can be hard to claim cause and effect from a small dose of whatever is being tested. However, if you test a tiny dose, and 10 times that, and 100 times, and 1000 times, and so on (a logarithmic scale) then you have data you can fit a curve to. Voila! Something you can use to predict the effect of ANY dose. Don't ridicule something because you don't understand the science behind it.

      December 14, 2010 at 20:06 | Report abuse |
    • mb

      Actually, Maria, you are WAY off. The body does have to expend energy when ingesting and breaking down food particles. The more complex the molecule the more energy is required to break it down to its basic subunits. Kilroy is right. Many studies have shown that the ingestion of fake sugars actually leads to weight gain.

      December 14, 2010 at 20:10 | Report abuse |
    • JC

      Actually MB, you are so wrong you make me laugh. Not only is your science a bunch of baloney but your thoughts are not even logical.

      If your body used any significant amount of energy to digest food to build energy stores, things like saccharin which have no calories would be excellent diet chemicals. They would actually burn calories to process. The amount of calories that are expended to ingest calories is negligable at best.

      In terms of this magic metabolism. Your body doesnt "fire down" the metabolism based on saccharin. The studies you are referring to showed that calorie free drinks led to nearly equal weight gain as their calorie laden counterparts. This study did not control for overall food intake, meaning if you always pick up a chicken wing with your coke, you are still going to pick up a chicken wing with your diet coke, and since you arent getting any calories from your coke you may just eat an extra wing.

      There is no magical metabolism. Yes we all have different basal rates, and we all expend differing amounts of exercise through our activities etc, but in the end its mass in vs mass+energy out.

      December 14, 2010 at 20:21 | Report abuse |
    • Michel

      The makers of saccharin are harvesting the fruits of their investment. Saccharin makes stuff taste like crap and makes you sick but enough money can convert lies into truth so it seems.

      December 14, 2010 at 21:37 | Report abuse |
    • runswithbeer

      You folks don't know squat about Carbs and weight gain. Eating Actual Carbs LIKE RICE OR REAL SUGAR causes folks to experience a rush from Dopamine production. Like a cigarette 15-20 minutes later you come down from the high and go to the refrigerator looking for another rush. Consuming artificial NON-CARBOHYDRATE sweeteners CANNOT CAUSE this rush. I'm a diabetic. I can drink Diet Soda till the cows come home with little effect on my blood sugar level. A couple of unplanned cokes could put me in the hospital. (I prefer water)

      December 14, 2010 at 21:40 | Report abuse |
    • Ronnie

      Anything is cancerous if you stuff enough of it into yourself? REALLY? Exactly where do you get that idea from? Your comment was probably the stupidest I have ever read!

      December 14, 2010 at 21:56 | Report abuse |
    • Robert

      Funny that they also claim fluoride to be safe as well and plenty of research provides shows it is toxic too.

      December 14, 2010 at 22:21 | Report abuse |
    • Captain Jones

      Maybe its the FDA thats corrupt, not the EPA..... In fact the corruption of the FDA has been know for years in washington as a dirty little secret....

      December 14, 2010 at 23:39 | Report abuse |
    • MedStudent

      uhh...not true in the slightest...

      December 14, 2010 at 23:53 | Report abuse |
    • Jimh77

      OK, so who took control of the EPA? Monsanto, like they took over the FDA with their HFCS A.K.A. Corn Sugar? Or some other GMA producer? People, we can not trust our Government agencies at all. They have been infiltrated by the Chemical companies and corporations for the big bucks. Screw the people. When sugar, real sugar was in everything, we didn't have obesity. Since HFCS has been introduced to all processed foods, not obesity, diabetes and a host of other ailments is ramped up to the point of death. Meanwhile the fat cats are cashing in. Washington has to be turned upside down!

      December 15, 2010 at 01:06 | Report abuse |
    • epa moron

      wowlfie-
      I am one of the EPA morons you refer to. Thank you for using your super intelligence to craft such a smart response to this article. Clearly you are a superior Olympiq Society member with an IQ of 180 who could win the Nobel prize for chemistry with one arm tied behind your back, one eye open, one test tube, and only using 10% of your brain capacity. Ok, so please now stop your playing on the internet and go back to drawing on your etchascehtch...

      December 15, 2010 at 02:34 | Report abuse |
    • Diane

      gosh don't you love watching your tax money wasted on crap like this? I was totally fine with the warning on Tab cola. If people want to drink something that "may cause cancer in lab rats" that's their business. This is about disposal – nothing more.

      December 15, 2010 at 03:09 | Report abuse |
    • Jeff

      Oh no! If wowlife is right (I tend to agree with the first sentence) this doesn't bode well for the conservative Repugs who have overdosed on hate and are so full of BS!

      December 15, 2010 at 07:07 | Report abuse |
    • a lot of morons

      wow, there are a lot of people who don't know jack about science on here. but, in particular, i'm going to pick on robert. are you one of those people who doesn't realize that we have fluoride in our toothpaste? anything, ANYTHING, is toxic in excessive amounts. have you ever heard of water poisoning? yes, even water can be poisonous in excess. some people are hopeless....

      December 15, 2010 at 07:14 | Report abuse |
    • joe

      The equation is just a teensy bit more complex than calories in – calories out. If that was the only thing that mattered for weight loss or overall health, we could all eat donuts and steak everyday.

      How do you explain the women who cut gluten out of their diet and lose 30% of their bodyweight within weeks (even after trying a purely calorie-restrictive diet)? My point is that quality (chemical composition) matters. It is not implausible that artificial sugars can affect overall digestive health. If it was, we could all use cyanide as a flavoring agent, mmmm... bitter almonds.

      December 15, 2010 at 08:43 | Report abuse |
    • Dais

      @Nathan, the link below is a great article written in 2004 called "What is Conservatism and What is Wrong with it?" by a man named Philip Agre. It goes into detail about conservative "goals" and tactics such as subrationalism, the destruction of reason and the destruction of conscience. I think it addresses your question about conservative anti-intellectualism.

      http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/conservatism.html

      December 15, 2010 at 11:03 | Report abuse |
    • dbarak

      Then why aren't you running the EPA? By your estimation, you seem qualified.

      December 15, 2010 at 11:03 | Report abuse |
    • babaelf

      Well, if it killed you 20 years ago when they thought they should preserve human life, imagine the 180 that's taken place in g. agencies that now want you quicker dead. Planet can't sustain you, according to the world global elite. What the hell does the epa have to do with it in the first place, This substance isn't something your rub on your arms or put in your deoderant - you EAT if gods sakes. That's the provenence of that other moronic agency: FDA. One has to wonder if there's just on Crook running the whole kitchen.....

      December 15, 2010 at 11:57 | Report abuse |
    • Matt

      Here's a great example: if you stuff yourself full of conservative anti-intellectualism and free-market fundamentalism, you'll get a brain cancer so severe that it causes you to think that corporations would always look out for consumers (and not, for instance, sell us poison as food or tell us cigarettes don't cause cancer) if the EPA would just get out of the way. Symptoms may also include believing your illiterate children will grow up to be millionaires, finding Glenn Beck insightful, and forgetting how to do arithmetic whenever the budget deficit and tax cuts are mentioned in the same sentence.

      December 15, 2010 at 17:16 | Report abuse |
  2. lee fithian

    Safety is good but geez ,lol .How much money did sweet n low lose due to these guys jumping the gun?Yes rats get bladder cancer from saccharin but that's all they ate ,You wouldn't eat that much in two lifetimes.I'm not a sweet n low fan I like dextrose /Splenda

    December 14, 2010 at 17:01 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Farts Smith

      If I remember correctly, the rodents actually got bladder cancer because crystals/pellets of saccharin had been directly injected into the wall of the bladder.

      December 14, 2010 at 17:54 | Report abuse |
    • Kamikaze

      That test was not debunked by other scientists due to sloppy work and it has never been replicated again.

      December 14, 2010 at 18:22 | Report abuse |
    • SB

      Research this a little more...I'm thinking they took money to reverse it. There are a lot of people who get really bad headaches when they consume this stuff. A lot more than you may realize. I personally know of 4 people that do. That's a fairly high amount. I'll be the first to admit I don't...but I wouldn't trust your local corporate american sweet and lo maker who stands to make millions tauting this new finding. It does cause harm.

      December 14, 2010 at 19:14 | Report abuse |
    • Chuck

      SB, people can associate negative feelings with anything. I'm sorry, I just can't accept your four friends as a reasonable sample size. If they say it gives them headaches, they should avoid it, but one things is for sure – you shouldn't trust anything your read on the internet for nutrition. You can find a point/counter point for any position, and it's rarely backed up with ANY empirical data, just bad science, anectdotes, personal experience, and hearsay.

      December 14, 2010 at 21:02 | Report abuse |
    • Linda

      Chuck, saccharin is a known migraine trigger. That doesn't mean it's cancerous, but many people who suffer from migraines have to avoid it.

      December 14, 2010 at 22:41 | Report abuse |
  3. kate

    its about time they took it off. Now i'm going to go out and drink 150 diet sodas in one day hopefully i'll be ok....haha really though http://www.diet-myths.com had an article on that

    December 14, 2010 at 17:22 | Report abuse | Reply
  4. Darryl Schmitz

    I'm probably going to get a lot of flak for it, but it's this same kind of scientific trainwreck that has given us the "Global Warming" theory (oops, excuse me... "Global Climate Change").

    December 14, 2010 at 17:47 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Squeeker

      Yeah, logically there's just no way that millions and millions of cars and factories spewing exhaust non-stop for generations could affect the environment – no way in He//. That's as silly and mythical as Santa Clause! Glad you and your kind (aheem, Republicans) can be so certain about this issue, but it really doesn't matter to you people anyway since your whole mindset is that it's all about you, keeping your lifestyle intact and not changing anything – no matter how broken it is. You'd even forsake the future of your children's environment to keep things the way they are... shameful.

      December 14, 2010 at 18:10 | Report abuse |
    • Kamikaze

      Ignorance is bliss.

      December 14, 2010 at 18:23 | Report abuse |
    • genna mae

      I'm gonna call you right out on your comment. This is coming from a meteorologist: YES, global climate is warming, and good and replicable science was used to find this. The so-called "train wreck" was caused by laypeople making ignorant assumptions about the causes and effects of climate patterns. I invite you to have a mature debate with me about this.

      The scientific methods the original saccharin researchers used were probably not sound, but at least they erred on the side of caution.

      December 14, 2010 at 19:38 | Report abuse |
    • a lot of morons

      darryl, you are a fuk!ng clown. you are an embarrassment to rational thought and reason. if you're any older than 8 years old, you should be ashamed of yourself. yeah, these years where the snow falls later and later each october in my city mean the earth's climate is TOTALLY stagnant and our actions as a species have never affected anything right?

      December 15, 2010 at 07:20 | Report abuse |
  5. Charles Gannon

    Oh good – that study only took 60 years to complete

    December 14, 2010 at 18:00 | Report abuse | Reply
    • He's dead jim

      Lol -
      great response.
      I was thinking along these lines as well...
      Whether this is true or not... how is this indicative of any sort of overall progress?

      December 14, 2010 at 19:26 | Report abuse |
  6. Wormstooth

    Darryl, how's your other brother Darryl? The world is now safe for saccharin, and the climate is not changing because it's cold today in Michigan. The world is obviously flat, and all those over-educated liberals should shut up and listen to Sarah!

    December 14, 2010 at 18:01 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Tell Me More

      So, are you saying that conservatives are under-educated? lol

      December 14, 2010 at 21:28 | Report abuse |
    • Dais

      For a great explanation of why conservatives like to make fun of serious issues such as cancerous chemicals and global warming, read http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/conservatism.html This is an article by someone named Philip Agre called "What is conservatism and what is wrong with it". It's a great read.

      December 15, 2010 at 00:51 | Report abuse |
  7. Audrey

    Another thing to bear in mind is that the rats and mice used in these studies are genetically inclined toward cancer...even when they're just living their lives eating rat chow, they're more likely to get cancer than ordinary rats and mice. And then there's the fact that humans aren't rats or mice. We know very well that substances can be perfectly safe for one species and deadly for another (hey, if they'd tested chocolate on dogs before releasing it to the public, we humans would probably consider it a deadly toxin.

    December 14, 2010 at 18:03 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Burbank

      No wonder they got cancer if all they ate was rat chow. Animals were not meant to live on a diet of artificial cruchy food and nothing else.

      December 14, 2010 at 18:28 | Report abuse |
    • EPA Cynic

      People who trust the EPA's new ruling are foolish. Saccharin manufacturers now have a lower disposal fee for their product and good PR to dupe more people into buying their product. These new "findings" are in the interest of big business and not the tax payers the government is supposed to be protecting. Do not be deceived!

      December 14, 2010 at 21:49 | Report abuse |
    • Teeph

      Burbank – Of course animals weren't "meant" to live on a diet of artificial crunchy food! They weren't "meant" to live PERIOD. Remember, this whole "being alive" thing is all one big happy cosmic accident and we can't have you running around and inadvertantly implying that living things might have a specific purpose, or (Darwin forbid!) a meaning or "design" that would anticipate some sort of opimal state of wellness for them. They live or they die. They adapt or they go extinct. No biggie. It happes all the time.

      December 15, 2010 at 07:52 | Report abuse |
  8. Gross stuff

    Yeah, no thanks. I'm not using that crap. They should stick to Truvia, though I hate the taste of that too. But then again, I don't like sweets.

    December 14, 2010 at 18:05 | Report abuse | Reply
  9. Chip

    Stand up and say no to USA corporate "health" machine. I recommend avoiding all USA doctors unless it's an emergency.
    If I ever hear from a doc that I have cancer, I'll refuse treatment and die with dignity. Just keep up the pain meds!
    I'm not having my life savings fleeced by our over-inflated corruption machine.

    December 14, 2010 at 18:09 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Burbank

      I agree 100%!

      December 14, 2010 at 18:26 | Report abuse |
    • S

      So you're anti-US medicine but will gladly take the meds from US Pharma? If I was the US doc to treat you and saw nonsense like this I'd leave you in pain and you can use the Internet to find your solace.

      December 14, 2010 at 22:05 | Report abuse |
    • MedStudent

      ....

      anti-medicine

      unless it's pain meds

      hypocrite.

      Unless you are DNR, DNI, basically unless you have it written that you refuse all treatment if you should be unconscious and dying, you are a hypocrite.

      December 14, 2010 at 23:56 | Report abuse |
    • Dais

      @med student – You sound very young and you probably are very young, but as you get more experience in the world you'll begin to learn that very few things are all or nothing. Based on your argument, if you don't trust car salesmen, then you should never drive or ride in a car, else you are a hypocrite. I can certainly distrust the pharma-controlled, disease oriented (not health oriented) medical training that doctors receive, yet still need a broken bone set. Just like you are sure the car salesman is going to try to rip you off, yet you still go to the dealership to buy a new car, not because you trust the car salesman, but because that's where the new cars are.

      December 16, 2010 at 02:53 | Report abuse |
  10. eduardz

    YUM! Time for a Tab.

    December 14, 2010 at 18:13 | Report abuse | Reply
  11. Burbank

    Chemical artificial sweeteners are all poisons and should be taken off the market! There are herbal alternatives like Stevia that are not bad for you and also have zero calories. I have gout and use it all the time, it's actually good for gout, since it's herbal it helps keep the system alkaline. All these chemical sweeteners make your system over acid, not just gout sufferers. An acid system leaves the body wide open for just about any kind of disease including the serious ones like cancer. These chemical sweeteners make your system even more acid than alcohol and red meat! Avoid them at all costs!

    December 14, 2010 at 18:25 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Gdawg

      And where did you learn this? What medical journals and studies do you site? Can you be specific? Or is it based on what you read on the internet or what some herbal-nazi told you? "More acid than red meat"? Please site the resource from which this claim is based.

      December 14, 2010 at 20:15 | Report abuse |
    • MedStudent

      yea what study do you have to show stevia isn't dangerous?

      You do realize "herbal" things are just drugs that bypass regulation by calling themselves herbal...

      December 14, 2010 at 23:57 | Report abuse |
    • Dais

      @MedStudent – If you want to be a good doctor some day, don't swallow the big pharma kool-aid, which it looks like you're doing. Herbs are not called herbs just to get around being regulated. They are called herbs because they are something that grows from the ground, rather than chemicals created in a laboratory which is what pharmaceuticals usually are. Btw, find some OBJECTIVE info on statins, rather than the propaganda the pharmaceutical companies are pushing in med school. Statins are scary stuff. Look all around. Don't rely solely on what they teach in med school. It's very weighted towards big pharma because big pharma provides so much funding for the school. In the future, the best doctors will be focused on HEALTH and prevention of disease, rather than just waiting for people to get sick and treating them (trauma and rare genetic disorders excepted). Big pharma hates the thought of that, because SICK people are where their money comes from, not healthy people.

      December 16, 2010 at 03:12 | Report abuse |
  12. Wormstooth

    Doctors, lawyers, and politicians should all be shot into space to a galaxy far away, truly. But I still use sugar to sweeten something, and I still notice Turkey Vultures flying over the highways of New England, which they never did in my lifetime, and I'm old! Scientists are not zealots, they just report what they see. Unlike doctors, lawyers, and politicians, they'll admit when they're wrong.

    December 14, 2010 at 18:25 | Report abuse | Reply
    • SB

      I couldn't agree with you less on the scientists part. I think this stuff is borderline nasty...but nasty none the less.

      December 14, 2010 at 19:16 | Report abuse |
    • MedStudent

      so I take it you are DNR, DNI, refuse all antibiotics, are not an organ donor, and basically have it written down signed and notorized that if you are brought in via ambulance from a car accident that they should leave you to die.

      if not you are a hypocrite

      December 14, 2010 at 23:59 | Report abuse |
  13. Christopher Alan Fields - Muncie Indiana USA

    "Saccharin no longer considered a hazardous substance" More Propaganda Saccharin Causes Cancer in Every Single Lab Study, End of Story!

    December 14, 2010 at 18:28 | Report abuse | Reply
  14. Christopher Alan Fields - Muncie Indiana USA

    Agave Nectar is an excellent sweetener and it Has Not been shown to Cause Cancer in Fact it Helps Fight Cancer.

    December 14, 2010 at 18:32 | Report abuse | Reply
  15. Imsomad

    I dont know why they keep saying that it does not cause bladder cancer. My dad is diabetic and he used to take saccharin 15 years or so back (dont remember exactly how long ago) and take it everyday with his tea until a few years later when he was diagnosed with the exact "bladder" cancer. He is still living with cancer and diabetes. My dad is living proof and it makes me angry every time I hear about saccharin and how the FDA or other organizations took back their warning that it is carcinogenic. I wish they did not. My dad would have known then. We didnt have the internet then that would have made us aware either.

    December 14, 2010 at 18:33 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Tyhouston

      Sorry guy... if your dad had cancer I doubt it was taking sweat and low is what was the ONLY cause.

      Let me guess companies have money to sue for, nature doesn't? What else about his diet? Only the one cause bet you look deeper you'll find dozens if not hundreds of other factors than that... even the mans own genetics, and this is from a man who yes has cancer.

      December 14, 2010 at 18:37 | Report abuse |
    • Greg

      You have shown correlation. There is a big difference between correlation and causation. This is the same as a kid that gets autism at the same time he gets his vaccine. There is a correlation because they both seemed to happen but no evidence to back up causation.

      There is not a great deal of scientific evidence showing causation from saccharine with any disease in humans.

      December 14, 2010 at 19:49 | Report abuse |
    • Gdawg

      I don't mean to sound insensitive, but people get bladder cancer that have never used saccharin. But because he used saccharin, it's easy to jump the gun and plug in the known facts to arrive at what seems to be the only answer. A classic case of correlation vs. causation. A common error we humans commit.

      December 14, 2010 at 20:18 | Report abuse |
  16. Tyhouston

    Here is a scientific update....

    If you pump 5 pounds of crap into a 3 oz mouse...

    It's gonna get cancer. Even our government studies are biased to whoever is throwing the person signing the papers off cash... gee like THAT is anything new.

    December 14, 2010 at 18:35 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Imsomad

      I know my dad..I know his diet..i know my genetics... no one in my family history I know has cancer... but you dont know any of that.. thats why theres something called benefit of doubt.. but you just pushed aside what could possibly be a connection! really!!!!

      December 14, 2010 at 18:43 | Report abuse |
    • MedStudent

      uhh...false.

      nice pseudointellectualism though

      December 15, 2010 at 00:00 | Report abuse |
  17. Ginger

    It gives me debilitating headaches to the point where I can barely walk without holding onto something, and the pain is worse than childbirth. Splenda has the same effect on me. Surely something about that is hazardous.

    Now if I really want something sweet, I just go for the real thing in moderation.

    December 14, 2010 at 19:03 | Report abuse | Reply
    • SB

      Ginger, my wife (who is an environmental engineer by the way) has the same problems with even the smallest amounts. We have learned that she is sensitive to most stuff in general, but ultra sensitive to this. There are a lot of natural sweeteners that don't have calories as well...like agave. Just an FYI...but I'd agree with you and not the EPA.

      December 14, 2010 at 19:18 | Report abuse |
  18. Joe Schmoe

    Wait? Isnt this the stuff that causes cancer in lab rats? Bull Pucky its all of a sudden good for you.

    December 14, 2010 at 19:15 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Adam

      Not hazardous and good for you are two different things...

      December 14, 2010 at 22:38 | Report abuse |
  19. mdc

    "EPA: Saccharin no longer considered a hazardous substance."

    Which in translation means: Certain death.

    December 14, 2010 at 19:16 | Report abuse | Reply
  20. SB

    From the same agency that said it was safe to work at ground zero after 9/11 with more than 200 now dead after the fact due to poor air quality. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emnhOR8WXpk) Yeah...I'm going to believe them...the story even admits there was pressure from a PAC.

    December 14, 2010 at 19:20 | Report abuse | Reply
    • douglas

      I love when people make judgments from afar. The most hazardous aspect of 9/11 was the initial plume of crushed concrete dust that was ingested by everyone nearby Ground Zero. Subsequent to the building collapse, the air was not toxic, not in the least, NOT AT ALL. I was there taking air samples from the second day through March of the next year. ALL the results are online for anyone to see. I know it's hard to believe, but everything is not a conspiracy.

      December 14, 2010 at 22:14 | Report abuse |
  21. Chris

    CNN should have a show called "Science 180", to highlight all the things that were bad for that are now good, and all of the things that were good for you that are now bad. The purpose of the show: Science is a joke. There are no such things as facts!

    December 14, 2010 at 19:22 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Adam

      Science journalism is the joke, and the jokes on you if you get all your info from the media.

      December 14, 2010 at 20:49 | Report abuse |
  22. jbird

    Yes this is back-pedaling; but more importantly, why arent there real details on the reason for the back-pedaling, esp after 30+ yrs of precautions on the packaging?! Someone with monetary interests, is hiding something important!

    December 14, 2010 at 19:22 | Report abuse | Reply
  23. ChimChim

    I feel much better now that the Calorie Control Counsil has successfully swayed the EPA decision on these products.

    If the EPA had it listed as hazardous materials....why did the FDA allow it in our food?

    Might be those 60+ manufacturers behind the CCC.

    December 14, 2010 at 19:27 | Report abuse | Reply
  24. Richard Allen

    I always did like a little cancer with my foods and drinks.

    December 14, 2010 at 19:33 | Report abuse | Reply
  25. Mark McKee

    The little researchers who cried wolf... I was born in 1958, and this has to be at least the 20th time in my life, that this story has changed. I believe it was around 1972, upon entering high school that I decided that sugar and caffeine are just fine, and about once, every 5 years the FDA or EPA proves me right, then wrong, then right, then wrong. That's why it's important to know the true names behind the acronyms. EPA stands for Enron Palin Assn. and FDA stands for Failure to Do Anything. It's hard to believe that Drs. Cohen & Gupta can even report medical study results with a straight face, since medical studies employ the absolute worst methods and tend to flip-flop every few years. As far as medications go, all Drs. like to believe they know something about drugs. They don't, so always ask your pharmacist, who can give you the truth. The Dr. is relying on the drug reps, who have been lying for about 15 – 20 years, but the Drs. still haven't gotten that memo.

    December 14, 2010 at 19:46 | Report abuse | Reply
  26. KD

    What about all of the other sweetners that are killing us – Sorbitol/Manitol that makes me have heart palpitations and dizziness; Aspertame (NutraSweet) which gives me migraine headaches; Sucralose (Splenda) which makes me bloated by retaining water. And what about all the crap they put in everything on the shelf to perserve freshness? It's all fake and it's being ignored by the government. By the time they figure it out, a whole generation will be gone...

    December 14, 2010 at 20:01 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Dubious

      That's the whole point of it... shorten the life span... get rid of people by poisioning them one little bit at a time. Decades later it causes disease but gives deniablity to the food industry. This helps governments because the people won't live long lives on social security and Medicare. So don't look to the EPA for help. Comsumers get to pay (we buy the junk food and bring it into our homes) and pay (buy health insurance and medical services) and pay (our taxes pay for the bad service we get from the EPA and for the government health programs) and we pay with our poor health. So don't buy their lies and especially don't buy their products. Go natural and organic. Junk food should be heavily taxed to pay for the health costs down the road that they cause.

      December 14, 2010 at 21:49 | Report abuse |
    • S

      Sorbitol occurs naturally in things like apple juice-so that gives you palpitations too? Maybe some of this is psychosomatic.

      December 14, 2010 at 22:09 | Report abuse |
  27. Ted

    I'm still sticking to water, juice, and coffee, oh, and don't forget, BEER! Why does everybody need stuff so sweet anyway? Adjust your tastebuds!

    December 14, 2010 at 20:19 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Zebula

      Agreed. Same with salt, by the way.

      December 15, 2010 at 10:31 | Report abuse |
  28. Mary

    Ah yeah~! What goes around comes around.. In manner of speaking..What is bad today is good tomorrow and visa versa..Never fret or worry..Just wait it out.. Your medications, your food and drink of choice will ride the same wave..Good today, bad tomorrow and then back around again..
    Now if they would just bring cyclamates back..Sugar free pop never tasted so good~! 🙂

    December 14, 2010 at 20:24 | Report abuse | Reply
  29. Adam

    I've been avoiding diet drinks all my life because they told me it causes cancer, who can I sue for being fat?

    December 14, 2010 at 20:47 | Report abuse | Reply
  30. Edward Nashville, TN

    Nowdays everything is processed and so many chemicals are added to our food and drink we are bound to get sick from one of these.

    December 14, 2010 at 21:00 | Report abuse | Reply
  31. Mico

    The goverment said so, so it must be true. They have a lot of credibility, don't doubt it.

    December 14, 2010 at 21:05 | Report abuse | Reply
  32. james

    Don't worry. This is the US government. In 20 years Saccharin will be able to kill you again.

    December 14, 2010 at 21:34 | Report abuse | Reply
  33. John in FL

    I showed this article to my Father-in-Law and he laughed. He has been using sweet-n-low in his coffee since it came out and has been drinking diet cola for 60 years. He is in good health, walks 2 miles every day, goes on two foreign vacations a year, and is 74 years old. Oh, he is also cancer free and has NEVER needed surgery for anything.

    December 14, 2010 at 21:42 | Report abuse | Reply
  34. carolinago

    I'll just stick to the natural stuff- good old (unrefined) sugar and honey... if I'm sweetening anything that is. The closer to the moment the food came out of the ground, the better. People ate unprocessed stuff for thousands of years and it's what our bodies are used to. Plus, fake sugar always leaves a funny aftertaste, which is all I need to tell me it's something we shouldn't be eating.

    December 14, 2010 at 21:43 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Dubious

      Not even the bugs will eat it. Set out a diet soda and a regular soda and watch the bugs go for the regular soda. We should have as much sense as these small creatures.

      December 14, 2010 at 21:56 | Report abuse |
  35. Malochlic

    "no longer hazardous"? That only means that it WAS hazardous. Why isn't it hazardous now: was it a new substance now. Just because of the "no longer" statement, I don't trust this article/claim.

    December 14, 2010 at 21:47 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Hey

      No longer "considered" a hazardous substance. Don't take words out of sentences that add meaning to the sentence itself.

      December 14, 2010 at 22:25 | Report abuse |
  36. Dick Hertz

    You mean all those Lab rats have been lying to us all these years.

    December 14, 2010 at 22:11 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Mike

      Newsflash: You are not a lab rat.

      December 15, 2010 at 02:26 | Report abuse |
  37. CT73

    Oh my gosh, the posters on here make me despair of everyone's scientific education. Something is studied for several decades in replication after replication, and suddenly the public has friends coming out of the woodwork who used sweetener and have migraines and cancer. Correlation does not equal causation, and anecdotes do not equal evidence. I have read some ridiculous homeopathic, herbal tripe theories in my day, but wow. It's amazing we accomplish anything with this extremely poor ability to assess a situation based on evidence. I'm just speechless.

    December 14, 2010 at 22:14 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Yes

      HEAR HEAR

      December 14, 2010 at 22:26 | Report abuse |
    • Tim H

      Hooray! Best post so far. Glad there is someone here who doesn't wear a tinfoil hat.

      December 14, 2010 at 23:09 | Report abuse |
  38. Dubious

    My best guess is that there was a pay-off... like a big political donation for "a little favor". Like what happened for aspartame... read up on it's history and then read about Stevia too.

    December 14, 2010 at 22:15 | Report abuse | Reply
  39. Deanna

    Here's the thing everyone knows or should know what is good and what is bad for you if you eat or drink something and it doesn't make you have headaches or sick then most likely you are fine I don't need the so called food police telling me this will kill you this is good for you or whatever life is too short and to the food police who has a problem if I eat so much as a cheeseburger from McDonalds because they say it will kill me well at least I will die happy

    December 14, 2010 at 22:23 | Report abuse | Reply
  40. billy boy 1952

    Of course the Govt. knows that Saccharin is a carcinogenic and have known it for over 20 years. They are more concerned with an epidemic of diabetes, due to sugar and bleached flour, affecting millions and costing hundreds of billions in lost productivity and health care costs, than they are about a few thousand getting cancer from artificial sweeteners. It's all about money. Get back to basics, fruit, vegetables, whole grains, avoid processed meats, exercise, and the nation's health will improve. Tax the crap out of junk food!!!!

    December 14, 2010 at 23:16 | Report abuse | Reply
  41. Johnny Five

    Whatever. Anything not natural doesn't belong in the biological body. Case Closed.

    December 14, 2010 at 23:18 | Report abuse | Reply
    • MedStudent

      so I take it you only eat food that you've grown yourself, because all food is processed and therefore unnatural.

      you have never taken a vaccine, antibiotic, vitamin supplement, or "herbal" remedy, since even the "purest" "herbal" remedies are actually processed and therefore are unnatural.

      the whole "natural" vs "unnatural" thing is a granola muncher's misunderstanding of how the body works. Most unnatural pharmaceuticals are far safer than their natural counterparts, hence why companies spend billions to alter natural things to make them more effective and safer

      take a natural statin – it will do nothing and is more likely to kill you
      take an "unnatural" generation 2 statin and you're likely to live longer and have lower cholesterol.

      December 15, 2010 at 00:03 | Report abuse |
    • Mulholland

      medstudent – Un-natural doesn't equal processed. You can have processed food that is perfectly natural. Most of the time when people speak of processed food they are referring to items that have added chemicals for preservation, HFCS, hydrogenated oils and/or other chemicals put in to make a product something it's not. All food is "processed" in the sense that you can't just take it and eat it as is. It has to go through a "process" to be sold. This ussually means cooking and/or packaging but does not necessarily mean that anything is added to make it un-natural.

      December 15, 2010 at 09:28 | Report abuse |
  42. A

    According EPA, cigarette smoke and vodka are not hazardous either. Also, and I am serious, the lethal dose of water is 29 grams which is less then shot of vodka. Official definition of lethal dose is the amount of substance that kills the rat when injected in the blood.

    December 14, 2010 at 23:47 | Report abuse | Reply
  43. lucacole

    Have you ever heard of a place called "123 Get Samples" on the web, they give out a free samples of major brands to promote their products. I just got mine.

    December 15, 2010 at 00:32 | Report abuse | Reply
  44. Tom

    Hey Ted, beer has alcohol in it, and is therefore cancer-causing. Saccarin is bad tasting to begin with, so I wouldn't use it.

    December 15, 2010 at 00:56 | Report abuse | Reply
  45. DD

    I disagree. My mom had no other indicators or risks for cancer, which killed her... except she ate saccharin every day for 45 years.

    December 15, 2010 at 01:04 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Frogface

      Some people are genetically prone to early death. 45 was a ripe old age back in the 1800's.

      December 15, 2010 at 08:14 | Report abuse |
  46. dave

    Some of you people are idiots go read and study for yourself the science behind it. Common sense would tell you that if it isn't natural...the chances are it isn't good . If you wanna trust fat cat companies, that could possibly be pulling strings, go right ahead. Look at the tobacco companies , I mean its not like they didn't knowingly stand up in court and say no its not harmful or cancerious but I'm sure their the only ones capable of such evil... right, think about it. As far as global warming goes,if you can't see the logic behind that you are an idiot and I feel sorry for you. Here some food for thought as well all those millions of gallons of oil being pumped out of the ground, what fills in those empty pockets,hell, what does it do underneath the ground does it have any effect on the plates or center of the earth that no one has seen, stop and think about all the aspects that make this world work and how we mess with that and ourselves every day, to what end.....WAKE THE...UP. And if you want to comment on this post negatively I guarantee you don't read,and search for yourself you rely on somebody else getting paid to do it for you and to think for you as well give yourself a pat on the back for your lazy opinion

    December 15, 2010 at 01:19 | Report abuse | Reply
  47. NatureDoc

    OK, so after reading all the blather above, I did an informal literature review (this is me sitting in pajamas digging through PubMed, with the MESH term "saccharin" and Limits of "Human, RCT, Meta-analysis, Clinical Trial"). Utterly unscientific, I admit (hey, I'm not being funded). Based on my scan of the 114 abstracts that show up this way...saccharin doesn't seem to be particularly carcinogenic, and it doesn't really seem to cause much stimulation of insulin secretion (which is where you'd expect to get weight gain).

    My credentials? I'm an honest-to-goodness ND – a naturopathic doctor. And before everybody jumps to the endless exhortations to read quackwatch, I already read it before attending naturopathic school. I've got a license. I order lab tests. I make dietary recommendations. I refer to surgeons. I prescribe drugs when needed (yes, they're darn useful). People pay me money to offer them sound nutritional and lifestyle advice.

    And saccharin, based on my reading, doesn't cause cancer.

    BUT...eat crappy American food (burgers and ice cream), and pretend you're being healthy by drinking Diet Crud, and you'll probably get fat. And obesity IS an independent risk factor for many cancers...

    December 15, 2010 at 02:24 | Report abuse | Reply
  48. Nokat

    If you brush your teeth daily with toothpaste and/or use mouthwash your'e ingesting saccharin. In a study on rats some years ago, daily small doses of saccharin produced large tumors in the rats within three months. Until the FDA bans such poisons in our foods, drinks, vitamins, mouth products, this country will remain sickly, mainly with cancer. What we put in our bodies should be as natural as possible and free of chemicals.

    December 15, 2010 at 04:04 | Report abuse | Reply
  49. danny

    What is conservatism article for bob.

    December 15, 2010 at 04:54 | Report abuse | Reply
  50. Craig Shearer

    We already knew this. DDT isn't toxic either. Junk science.

    December 15, 2010 at 06:12 | Report abuse | Reply
1 2

Post a comment


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.

Advertisement
About this blog

Get a behind-the-scenes look at the latest stories from CNN Chief Medical Correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Senior Medical Correspondent Elizabeth Cohen and the CNN Medical Unit producers. They'll share news and views on health and medical trends - info that will help you take better care of yourself and the people you love.