# How unsubstantiated fears over aspartame and e-cigarettes are having a detrimental effect on public



## Alex (26/8/16)

*How unsubstantiated fears over aspartame and e-cigarettes are having a detrimental effect on public health*




Adam R. Houston and David Sweanor, National Post | August 25, 2016 | Last Updated: Aug 25 12:01 AM ET







Chloe Cushman/National Post



Twitter
Google+
Reddit
Email
Typo?
More
This summer, Pepsi reintroduced a version of its signature cola sweetened with aspartame. The artificial sweetener had been removed less than a year earlier, in response to (unfounded) worries about its safety. But taking out aspartame did not reverse the slump in diet cola sales, as the company had hoped. Instead, sales continue to reflect a general decline in soda consumption.

From a public-health perspective, this overall decrease is positive, given that sugary soda — which is essentially fizzy flavoured water with no nutritional benefits — is a major contributor to rising obesity rates. But the public panic about aspartame highlights a worrying trend: fears are too often misdirected at new innovations, rather than the known harms they might reduce.

Given the very real health concerns linked to obesity, it is unfortunate that aspartame, which can help decrease sugar intake, should be the subject of decades of misinformation. A similar issue has emerged over another less-harmful alternative to a product that’s far deadlier than soda: personal vaporizers, commonly known as e-cigarettes, which many people are using to replace lethal cigarettes.


Although the use of products like e-cigarettes has rapidly increased, many people still believe — as with aspartame — that they are as harmful, or more harmful, than the tobacco products they are designed to replace. This tendency to highlight unfounded concerns about safer alternatives to unhealthy products plays right into the hands of Big Tobacco and Big Food — two industries that have been accused of using similar tactics to deflect criticism of their unhealthy products.

Both create products with negative health effects that are used by great numbers of people. Both have employed similar marketing strategies, from targeting youth to expanding into untapped foreign markets. Increasing insights into the addictive qualities of sugar and other ingredients, and how companies design their products to exploit such properties, underscore these parallels.

We know that decreasing the consumption of soda and cigarettes will save lives. And while going cold turkey may not be feasible for many people, products that mitigate harm can have positive effects, even when they do not give up the activity entirely — getting nicotine without smoke, or satisfying a sweet tooth without sugar, for example. This is realistic harm reduction, not unrealistic harm elimination.





Pete Fisher/Northumberlad Today/Postmedia NetworkVaping store owners and supporters protest an Ontario law that prohibits the display of e-cigarettes and prevents customers from trying them in-store, in Cobourg, Ont., in 2015.
It is perfectly sensible to have a healthy skepticism about new products and technologies, particularly their long-term effects. Where real risks exist, it is important to identify them. But it makes little sense to focus on theoretical, minuscule or entirely bogus harms without acknowledging the serious, well-known harms caused by existing products, which these new innovations could mitigate.

The fact that we do not yet completely and unequivocally know the potential effects of a 20-year vaping habit should be outweighed by the fact we are all too familiar with the effects of a 20-year smoking habit. In this case, reducing the harms caused by the devil we know — the one with a wealth of scientific evidence showing that it’s a massive public health concern — should be the priority.

If anything, the history of aspartame research shows an abundance of scientific caution. After safety concerns were raised, its initial approval was withdrawn, pending further testing. As a result of this controversy, it has remained under close scientific scrutiny since it was reapproved. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) now says that aspartame is one of the most exhaustively studied substances in the human food supply.





PepsiCo via The Associated Press
Similarly, an extensive review by the European Food Safety Authority in response to public concerns confirmed that aspartame consumption at current levels is safe (one would have to consume 19 cans of diet soda a day to exceed the FDA’s recommended limits). Nonetheless, public misinformation continues to dissuade people from using it. Similarly, e-cigarettes are a new and promising technology for reducing the harms of a product the World Health Organization predicts will kill up to a billion people this century. Vaping electronic cigarettes is irrefutably safer than smoking regular cigarettes.

Britain’s prestigious Royal College of Physicians concluded that vaping is likely to be at least 95 per cent less harmful than smoking. While that precise figure might be debatable, the broader conclusion is not. Yet rumours and alarmist quasi-science of the kind that have long plagued aspartame now fuel regulations not grounded in evidence or good public-health practices, and threaten both consumer acceptance of, and access to, products that are demonstrably less harmful than those they may be using now. More needs to be done to ensure that consumer knowledge — and regulatory priorities — better reflect the scientific evidence.

National Post

_*Adam R. Houston is a PhD student at the University of Ottawa working in the area of health law. David Sweanor is a public-health advocate and adjunct professor in the Centre for Health Law, Policy & Ethics at the University of Ottawa.

source: http://news.nationalpost.com/full-c...-having-a-detrimental-effect-on-public-health*_

Reactions: Like 4 | Winner 3


----------



## Rude Rudi (26/8/16)

Fantastic article! I love the comparison with Aspartame - a perfect summary of the realities of "Big Tobacco and Big Food" and their tactics...

What I don't get is why do "Big Tobacco" not join and embrace vaping instead of fighting it? How about a line of Camel. Marlboro, etc vape juices? They can use their teams of researches and scientists and incorporate all the/their trendy flavours, etc but in vape form... 

Same as the Uber debate and the outcry that they are "taking our business". For the love of OHM, keep up and innovate...


----------



## boxerulez (26/8/16)

Aspertame is YUMMY!!! Coke Zero FTW!

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Rude Rudi (26/8/16)

boxerulez said:


> Aspertame is YUMMY!!! Coke Zero FTW!


And not so bad for you (anymore). Same as butter vs marg, low fat milk vs full cream milk, etc, etc... It changes every year but with modern science the facts can not be disputed any longer...

Love this:

_"aspartame consumption at current levels is safe (one would have to consume 19 cans of diet soda a day to exceed the FDA’s recommended limits)"_

I'm more of a Coke Lite oke BTW!


----------



## RichJB (26/8/16)

@Rude Rudi, big tobacco is one of the biggest players in vaping. Or cig-alikes, at any rate. The way I see it, the vaping companies (Kangertech, Aspire, Smok, Eleaf/Joyetech/Wismec, etc) are going for the "elite" vaping market - expensive devices, lots of power, high juice consumption. Big tobacco is going for the mass mainstream market - cheap disposables sold at convenience stores, low power, low juice consumption.

So big tobacco is not anti-vaping by any stretch. Quite the contrary, they have released several research studies to show that vaping is less harmful than smoking. What they will do, though, is try to convince the market that their Twisp-style devices are better than the vape gear that we typically use. That fight is going to get very dirty at some point.

Reactions: Like 2 | Agree 1


----------



## Andre (26/8/16)

RichJB said:


> @Rude Rudi, big tobacco is one of the biggest players in vaping. Or cig-alikes, at any rate. The way I see it, the vaping companies (Kangertech, Aspire, Smok, Eleaf/Joyetech/Wismec, etc) are going for the "elite" vaping market - expensive devices, lots of power, high juice consumption. Big tobacco is going for the mass mainstream market - cheap disposables sold at convenience stores, low power, low juice consumption.
> 
> So big tobacco is not anti-vaping by any stretch. Quite the contrary, they have released several research studies to show that vaping is less harmful than smoking. What they will do, though, is try to convince the market that their Twisp-style devices are better than the vape gear that we typically use. That fight is going to get very dirty at some point.


Agreed, and their influence shows in the USA deeming Regulations.


----------



## Rude Rudi (26/8/16)

RichJB said:


> @Rude Rudi, big tobacco is one of the biggest players in vaping.



Thanks, I didn't know this...albeit not using their brand names for the entry level solutions. My point was that should participate and use their name(s) to bolster the e juice "basket", ie Camel juice - sounds a bit weird though! LOL

Interesting times...


----------



## Rude Rudi (26/8/16)

Not sure whether you have seen this one - puts another spin on it:

Reactions: Winner 1


----------



## Jan (26/8/16)

Mmm know a researcher who worked on a study about aspartame they were not allowed to give detail but that person did switch from diet soda to the 12volt version after the study.


----------



## Rude Rudi (26/8/16)

And this one - very well done/produced:

Reactions: Like 1 | Winner 1


----------



## Caveman (26/8/16)

Rude Rudi said:


> Fantastic article! I love the comparison with Aspartame - a perfect summary of the realities of "Big Tobacco and Big Food" and their tactics...
> 
> What I don't get is why do "Big Tobacco" not join and embrace vaping instead of fighting it? How about a line of Camel. Marlboro, etc vape juices? They can use their teams of researches and scientists and incorporate all the/their trendy flavours, etc but in vape form...
> 
> Same as the Uber debate and the outcry that they are "taking our business". For the love of OHM, keep up and innovate...



Big Tobacco don't want in on it because vaping helps you kick the habit and go for longer periods of time between feeling a nicotine crave. Both of these things equate to less money for them. Never fool yourself, Big Tobacco is for the money, nothing else. Big Tobacco have those cigalikes, but who knows what goes in to them.

This is why these FDA regulations are perfect for them. They get to capitalize on a new market by getting the government to kill the competition.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jan (26/8/16)

The other theory is that big tobacco don't want to get burnt again. Don't forget the many $BN's they had to pay due to law suits in the 1990's and 2000's. The one idea is that once the vaping legislation is sorted and longer term studies show positive results that they are going to hit the market.


----------



## Jan (26/8/16)

The popular belief is that big tobacco is suffering because of vaping but it is actually going very well in the tobacco industry thanks to the huge market in the far east.

The share price of RJ Reynolds for example hit a low in April 0f 2009 at $10 per share, today 7 years later it is $50 per share. Philip Morris went from $40 per share to a modest $100 per share


----------

