阿斯巴甜科學混亂

我們今天麵臨的問題與阿斯巴甜是各方的結果不是把他們所有的卡片擱在桌子上。正如我們所見過的,這將使我們無處但無用的周期性的討論。也證明損害通過提高懷疑行業的意圖和科學基金會的信譽。這個問題是如此的充滿爭議,血液沸騰,手指指向。但不幸的是,在這種情況下沒有進步,進步是我們迫切需要的,勝過一切。阿斯巴甜、高強度甜味劑等營銷在品牌相同的情況下,研究和Canderel,在1965年首次被發現。但由於初始癌症的擔憂,不被批準用於幹貨,直到1980年代早期。在未來的幾年,它的使用慢慢擴展到飲料和其他食品,直到所有限製其使用被美國食品和藥物管理局(FDA)在1996年。雖然現在行業敏銳地指出,超過200個研究,證明其安全性,阿斯巴甜還沒有完全擺脫的黑點汙染其形象。兩年之後世界上為數不多的綜合cancer-testing項目之一,歐洲Ramazzini基金會(小塊土地),發布了第一個研究阿斯巴甜與癌症基金會上個月再次標記了可怕的鏈接。 And this second study has - again - resulted in a whirlwind of comment and controversy. Seen against the background of an overwhelming body of information on aspartame that led to it being approved, the new study is but a hiccup. Yet it is a hiccup that cannot be discounted. The problem is that there is nothing to hint that this study will not face the same fate - essentially being dismissed - as its predecessor, published by ERF in 2005. That first Ramazzini study was what essentially rekindled the aspartame debate. Concerns mounted, media reported, consumers feared, regulatory bodies acted. Both FDA in the US, and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) across the Atlantic re-asserted their evaluations of aspartame's safety after reviewing the ERF data. EFSA was fairly transparent in its review, describing the process it followed and publishing a 44-page opinion by its scientific review panel. FDA was less open. It published only a press release re-affirming its position on the ingredient's safety, but added that it was unable to review all relevant data. The reason is that ERF was also not transparent. It provided regulators with substantial additional data amounting to a 900-page report. But it kept its pathology slides to itself, proposing instead, it claims, a collaboration with FDA to“加速精化和加速”未來阿斯巴甜的數據。該基金會是沒有義務提供所有數據,它的工作是進行科學,解釋結果和得到這些出版。但與此同時,監管機構隻能回顧他們在他們麵前。通過保持數據本身——合法權利的基礎隻是損害自己的聲譽將其信譽質疑。誰是壞人?有壞人嗎?還是人們意見不一?生硬的現實是——不出所料——所有這一切都歸結到一個經濟學的問題。研究這類花費數百萬美元。融資是一個痛處,政府和獨立的科學機構。 And industry-funded science is always viewed with suspicion. According to Dr Angelika Tritscher, who heads up WHO's Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), this funding catch 22 results in less chance of completely pure science and subjective research. But even if a shadow of doubt hangs over new science, this is absolutely indispensable in cases such as aspartame. As a publication, we are not in a position to judge one way or another on the science and safety surrounding this controversial ingredient. Nor are any industry organizations or advocacy groups. The solid evidence comes only from scientific truth, and in the case of aspartame, all we are seeing are scientific opinions. Although Ramazzini stands alone in the sea of science, it has raised a flag, suggesting that though there may be no cause for panic, there is certainly cause for questioning. What we need is constructive, collaborative debate, more science and - above all - transparency.洛林海勒FoodNavigator-USA的編輯,是一個專業的作家在食品工業問題。有國際焦點,她生活和工作在英國,塞浦路斯和法國。如果你想要評論這篇文章,請電子郵件lorraine.heller特'decisionnews.com