View Full Version : Low Cal Industry Lobby Finds Sweeteners Safe For Gut Microbiome

01-25-19, 05:05 AM
ANH International
January 24 2019

Can we trust the findings of industry-funded studies that fly in the face of independent science?

There was a time when most scientific studies were objective, hypothesis-led and conducted by independent, bias-free academic institutions. But university funding cuts have flung open the doors to industry/corporate funding, which in turn has created a level of profit-seeking bias that brings the results of so much research into question.
Such is the nature of the latest review on sweeteners (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691518308780?via%3Dihub) (also referred to as non-nutritive sweeteners) to hit the pages of the prestigious journal, Food and Chemical Toxicology. The review's researchers who work for labs that routinely develop formulations for Big Food that include artificial/non-nutritive sweeteners, conclude that, “Current studies show no evidence of adverse effects of sweeteners on gut microbiota”. Really?

Read more: https://www.anhinternational.org/news/low-cal-industry-lobby-finds-sweeteners-safe-for-gut-microbiome/?utm_source=The+Alliance+for+Natural+Health&utm_campaign=3a26cb0814-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_01_24_10_48&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_aea8a87544-3a26cb0814-85014029

Mr. Wizard
01-25-19, 05:10 PM
What a joke. This study was based on a literature search of 123 studies. Astonishingly, these researchers concluded that all the studies that showed an adverse effect from sweetners....got it all wrong. Also, I could not find any evidence that their research was "peer reviewed."

01-25-19, 11:51 PM
But the average person reads this and says, "There, you see, all that fuss over something that's harmless after all." Next week, the same average person reads about studies claiming the exact opposite and — without the least attempt at critical thinking — throws up their hands and says, "Forget about science, it's bogus, they can't agree on anything!"

Mr. Wizard
01-26-19, 05:50 PM
With nutritional studies, the devil is in the details!! For ex., A recent study concluded that beta carotene--a preforma for vitamin A--was not effective for macular degeneration of the eyes. After reading more of the details, I discovered the study used "synthetic" beta carotene. In contrast, "natural" beta carotene, like that found in carrots, pumpkin, etc., appears as a part of a "carotenoid complex." So, beta carotene in a carrot exist along with 400 other carotenoids. No wonder a study using only synthetic beta carotene would not show the same effect as natural beta carotene. The details make a huge difference in these studies. But, I agree, all this gets enormously confusing for the average person.

01-27-19, 11:18 AM
So the message I'm getting is, forget the supplements, eat real whole fresh food.

Mr. Wizard
01-27-19, 05:11 PM
Whole fresh food.....nutritionally is best! However, if one supplements, choose supplements sourced from whole foods. These supplements clearly indicate the foods from which each vitamin & mineral comes from. But, "synthetic" supplements leave a lot to be desired.