Saccharin taken off list of agents causing cancer
Wednesday 17 May 2000
Latest in Science
Related articles
On Facebook
From the blogs
More than half of Afghanistan’s families live in extreme poverty
Leila is watching her baby intently, as his mouth moves trying to swallow the small blob of yellow p...
Time for a new approach to alcohol
Ambulances were called and three drunk teenagers were brought to my care. One was so drunk we had to...
Bahrain: One year on
I am used to endless lies and criticism from the BNP and its favourite blogster, as well as Islamist...
Paul Volcker stands tall against the banking lobby
Why is Europe, which likes to present itself as an opponent of speculative "Anglo-Saxon" finance, li...
Saccharin has become the first substance to be removed from an official list of cancer-causing chemicals, because of new evidence showing that the animal studies which indicated a risk do not apply to humans.
Saccharin has become the first substance to be removed from an official list of cancer-causing chemicals, because of new evidence showing that the animal studies which indicated a risk do not apply to humans.
However, new rules on how to define a carcinogen means that activities as well as chemicals have now been added to the list, drawn up by the American government, including passive smoking, drinking and lying under a sunbed.
The list, which was first published in 1978, contains 218 entries divided into two broad categories: "known" carcinogens and "reasonably anticipated" carcinogens.
Saccharin was added to the "reasonably anticipated" list in 1981 after scientists found that rats fed on the substance developed bladder tumours. It was not banned but labels had to include a warning, which led to a fall in sales and a corresponding increase in the popularity of other artificial sweeteners.
Dr Kenneth Olden, director of the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, which operates the National Toxicology Programme, said the original listing of saccharin was a prudent step to take given the strength of the animal studies.
"However, our understanding of the science has advanced and allows us to make finer distinctions today. Studies now indicate that the rat bladder tumours arise from mechanisms that are not relevant to the human situation," he said. "In addition, we have decades more data from observations of humans using saccharin that adds to our confidence."
Studies that have attempted to assess the risk of saccharin when it first became widely used 60 years ago have failed to identify an "overall association" with bladder cancer, although an occasional association in small, one-off studies means the cancer risk of artificial sweeteners cannot be ruled out, the report states.
The probability of someone developing cancer at some point in their lives is about one in two for men and one in three for women and most scientists believe many cancers may be associated with the environment in which people live and work, the report says.
"In this context, the 'environment' is defined as anything that interacts with humans, including lifestyle choices, such as substances eaten, drunk and smoked, and aspects of sexual behaviour; natural and medical radiation, including exposure to the sun; workplaces exposures; drugs; socio-economic factors affecting exposures and susceptibility; and substances in air, water and soil," the report said.
- 1 Apple admits it has a human rights problem
- 2 Caught in his own blast: an Iranian targeting Israel
- 3 No secularism please, we're British
- 4 Reinstate Knox's murder charge, Italian court told
- 5 Police confiscate passport from Brooks' assistant
- 6 Lightning kills an entire football team
- 7 'Drunk tanks' and minimum prices to help Britain sober up
- 1 How Koscielny became prince of the Emirates
- 2 Apple admits it has a human rights problem
- 3 Spotify: 1 million plays, £108 return
- 4 Six Grammys, five years off: Adele puts love before career
- 5 Lightning kills an entire football team
- 6 Police confiscate passport from Brooks' assistant
- 7 Nauru and Abkhazia: One is a destitute microstate marooned in the South Pacific, the other is a disputed former Soviet Republic 13,000km away, so why are they so keen to be friends?
- 8 I was born to be a killer. Every night I see the Devil in my dreams
- 9 Mark Steel: If religion is 'marginal', I'm the Pope
- 10 Rothschild loses libel case, and reveals secret world of money and politics
Free trial of new Independent iPad app
Get your daily dose of the best of British journalism, sponsored by American Airlines
Win a three-week coastal jaunt
Spend three weeks exploring every nook and cranny of gorgeous Atlantic Canada.
Amazing restaurant offers
Three glasses of free champagne and a special menu at 46 top London restaurants.
Latest Independent competitions
Win anything from gadgets to five-star holidays on our competitions and offers page.
Commercial thought leaders
Watch the best in the business world give their insights into the world of business.
Career Services
Day In a Page
No secularism please, we're British
Working as a jail torturer ruined my life
New Arsenal face an old question of credibility in San Siro




Comments