http://www.janethull.com/askdrhull/article.php?id=046
And if you don’t believe that Dr. Hull is onto something. Maybe you’d like to find out that Duke University has also conducted a study, exposed here:
http://www.celebritydietdoctor.com/splenda-harmful/
And if you are really interested, here is the study:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a902553409~db=all~order=page

Further, if you really BELIEVE all government agencies, you can read this: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/artificial-sweeteners

“But the Japanese don’t consume large amounts of stevia,” notes Douglas Kinghorn, professor of pharmacognosy (the study of drugs from plants) at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

“In the U.S., we like to go to extremes,” adds toxicologist Ryan Huxtable of the University of Arizona in Tucson. “So a significant number of people here might consume much greater amounts.”

Here’s what troubles toxicologists:

Reproductive problems. Stevioside “seems to affect the male reproductive organ system,” European scientists concluded last year. When male rats were fed high doses of stevioside for 22 months, sperm production was reduced, the weight of seminal vesicles (which produce seminal fluid) declined, and there was an increase in cell proliferation in their testicles, which could cause infertility or other problems.1 And when female hamsters were fed large amounts of a derivative of stevioside called steviol, they had fewer and smaller offspring.2 Would small amounts of stevia also cause reproductive problems? No one knows.

Cancer. In the laboratory, steviol can be converted into a mutagenic compound, which may promote cancer by causing mutations in the cells’ genetic material (DNA). “We don’t know if the conversion of stevioside to steviol to a mutagen happens in humans,” says Huxtable. “It’s probably a minor issue, but it clearly needs to be resolved.”

Energy metabolism. Very large amounts of stevioside can interfere with the absorption of carbohydrates in animals and disrupt the conversion of food into energy within cells. “This may be of particular concern for children,” says Huxtable.

The bottom line: If you use stevia sparingly (once or twice a day in a cup of tea, for example), it isn’t a great threat to you. But if stevia were marketed widely and used in diet sodas, it would be consumed by millions of people. And that might pose a public health threat.

“The take-home message is simply that we don’t know enough,” says Huxtable.

That’s why the government needs to require companies to do more—and better—testing.

I hope you are not a real doctor, because unfortunately most people still look to doctors for the answers for good health- what a joke.
Use a western doctor if you want an early grave.

One does not need ‘complete documentation and scientific study[ies] to know when they are ill. It doesn’t always take a rocket scientist to figure out what is causing the symptoms you feel.
If you are waiting on the FDA to tell you what is good to eat or any other such entity, then you are a bigger fool than I first imagined. When are you going to understand that the FDA is largely controlled by politics? If you think they have your best interest at heart, then please tell me why for so many years aspartame was not approved and then almost magically was; why don’t you do the scientific research on that, and you will see the politics my friend.

I do not totally agree with everything in this article, but there are a few valid points and I personally was happy to see aspartame make the list of no-no’s, as I have gotten sick by that toxin (no scientific research told me that)
HFCS is another one, and for years Trans Fats I knew was bad from my classes in Nutrition, but I do not agree that sugar (though it is not a healthful choice) should be in the same category as aspartame, trans fats and HFCS. It is not a toxin, it is a processed food.
I also do not agree that unbleached flour is a healthful food. All white flour products are bad, but the bleached variety is worse.

…and Doctor Bob, if you think the only reason to avoid artificial sweeteners is that you get fat from then, then you need to go back to school. Fat my dear is the least of our problems, and that bears repeating, fat is the least of our problems. If fat were the only problem here then we could eliminate these evils and get on with our lives; even in the event you were to become diabetic, this too could be rectified by simply controlling our diet, but unfortunately this is just the tip of the iceberg: vision problems, breathing problems, heart problems, to name a mere few are some of the symptoms associated with aspartame poisoning; some of these symptoms mimic other diseases and some people are often misdiagnosed; worse yet are those people that baffle the doctors because they cant see anything wrong based on their textbook education.
I am not even going to address the comment about not eating smelly foods…come on. How simple can you be?

Based on the fact that scientific research relies on testing of animals (mostly rats) which by the way it caused seizures in the rats and one died, that is why it was not approved all those years, anyway, this research is based on humans who are living their lives with the very symptoms I described above. It does not get more scientific than that, but go on and wait for your research genius, you may be one of the ones who just drops dead.

Ps here’s a thought, all the athletes who are dropping dead lately are drinkers of aspartame, check the labels of sports drinks.
Don’t take this lightly people. I didn’t just waste half an hour answering this so called doctor for nothing.
Good health to all

Further, if you really BELIEVE all government agencies, you can read this: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/artificial-sweeteners
In MY mind, I believe that if an agency can’t PROVE that it ISN’T toxic, then you can bet it probably is. A lot of hemming and hawing about if a rat is like a human and a human is like a rat is crap to me. If something causes cancer, or has caused cancer or MAY cause cancer…Stay away from it.

You said: “Thanks Doctor Bob. I’d like to clarify, that the blog entry states that there is ’strong evidence’ that they ‘are toxic’.”

There is no sound scientific evidence at all to state that artificial sweeteners are toxic.

It is perfectly fine for you to state your beliefs, that to say there is “strong evidence” on toxicity of sweeteners is fraud.

Tess

Yolanda…you might want to see your doctor or a nutritionist regarding your energy levels.

Your article is incorrect and misleading by stating that the artificial sweeteners listed are toxic, dangerous, or cancer causing. This is completely undocumented by any scientific study (Aspartame if stored in heat will break down to ammonia, but you can taste this – so do not use something that tastes bad). The reason to avoid artificial sweeteners (and I do avoid them) is because they “fool” the brain and we overeat. Multiple studies show that humans and animals will overeat and gain weight if they regularly use artificial sweeteners. It is best to learn to appreciate good food. If food needs salt or sugars/sweeteners to taste good, it is probably not good quality.

People really need to wake up!! I helped a friend go through her “health” food cabinet and she was shocked how crappy (lol) her food was.

Thanks so much Brett for enlightening us on your blog. I’m keeping your articles ! They are so helpful and informative!

I have been reading this blog for some time now but never bothered to comment until today. Wanted to let you know that I am a fan and enjoy your work.

Thanks,