Talk:Cyclamate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Why (still) banned in the United States?

I don't get it. Why was it banned in the US? How can "causes bladder cancer in rats" be the justification for banning it, if this criterion would also ban the sale of sugar water? Is there part of the story that's missing? -confused

It gets stranger: Interestingly, also in the 1960's, it was shown that high doses of saccharin caused bladder cancer in rats, too. According to that page, the FDA considered banning saccharin, but never did. -still confused

I don't get it either, confused. Seems political. As in corruption at the FDA has led to the continuing ban. (The original ban, I hope, was out of an abundance of caution). But I guess this is mere speculation based on the available evidence. Don't want to get too far into OR here. A quote from Reason magazine seems to support the general notion:

When the FDA loses a case, it has a mind like an elephant. It's just something you've got to understand about the FDA. Once the agency makes a collective decision, trying to make it let go is almost impossible. These are 'FDA crusades.' In a real sense, they're vendettas. [...] The FDA decided that cyclamate was dangerous in 1969. Everyone knows it's not dangerous, but they still don't have the political courage to say, 'We made an honest mistake in 1969.' The FDA is institutionally incapable of doing that.

-204.42.25.58 19:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

(my previous wordy comments from today deleted). Okay, to summarise, the "Irreversable Testicular Atrophy" (ITA) effect with cyclamates is now generally known about (it wasn't when I originally looked into it) and is now mentioned in lots of places on the web. So I've deleted my earlier "discussion" here as "out-of-date", and have updated the article, instead. ErkDemon 16:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I have heard that the ban on cyclamates came about from the effect that their sale and popularity had on sugar prices in Central America in particular. In exchange for allowing CIA operations to go on in those countries without opposition, the market for sugar in the US would be maintained by banning cyclamate. Saccharine was already too well established to ban, and most people who did not need to use a sugar alternative did not really like the taste of saccharine. The ban has become an empty gesture since cane and beet sugar have been largely replaced by high fructose corn syrup in junk food sold in the US anyway. I also remember a news story a few years back that the cyclamate ban in the US had sunsetted. That news report seems to have been innacurate. Probably the main reason that we are not seeing the return to cyclamate sales in the US is that noone wants to try to market it. It would be like trying to sell a Ford Pinto, even though the gas tank flaw had been corrected. Most people would be afraid to try it, and stores would be afraid to put it on their shelves. Besides that, there are now even more choices for non-caloric sweeteners including stevia, a natural plant extract that have appeared on the market since the US ban was initiated. Are cyclamates an ongoing casualty of the cold war?

[edit] Metabolism

There is plenty of text about the suspected carcinogenity but little about the metabolism. There should be information about how much is taken up by the body, is it degraded by the liver etc. Icek 17:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Pac30.jpg

Image:Pac30.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)