Many years ago I switched from sugar to one of those artificial sweeteners; used them for years until a scare story linking Aspartame with an increased risk of cancer made me switch again. Now my thinking goes that unrefined natural sugar may hold more calories but at least it is as natural as possible.
The Wall Street Journal (limited access unless you are a subscriber) reported yesterday that the EU has found no evidence of a link between Aspartame and cancer; this supports an American study from last month that reached the same conclusion.
The experts also confirmed that the safe daily level of Aspartame (40 milligrams per kilo of body weight) was well above what people consume normally. You would need to ingest 80 of the little packets to exceed the level.
A quick search on google revealed dozens of sites (I wont link to them as many are pure sensationalist stuff) glorifying the horrors of this additive so it may take awhile for the true facts to be generally accepted.
America's Most Hated Foods
Slashfood Ate (8): Ways to create the perfect cheese plate
A good trick for saving summer herbs for future use
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
5-06-2006 @ 7:18PM
Bestvnteas said...
That's great news!
However, the recommended level for safe consumption does not allow me to substitute aspartame for granulated sugar in baking.
Well, we can not ask for everything.
http://www.cookies-in-motion.com
Reply
5-07-2006 @ 9:45AM
Hawk said...
You're always going to find websites screaming about how bad something 'really' is despite what studies say. People have an urge to distrust 'the man' and believe fringe things, or apply strange logic ("it's a chemical" ---> "it causes cancer and is bad for you!").
Reply