I commented thoughtfully, in detail, and with supporting evidence on another hub "Artificial Sweetener Are Bad" (grammar error belongs to the author, not me). Well, I tried to anyway. I worked for an hour to post good information and the author just denied my comments because I contradicted (and demonstrated as false) his position. So what am I to do but make my own hub with correct information. I recommend to all hubbers you use your rating and comment moderation privileges to improve hubpages and police inflammatory posts and spam, not as tools to silence opposition and falsely prop up your own positions as uncontested. Especially when your opposition has the wonderful democratic resource to take the challenge to open forum, like I'm doing here.

• From his hub: "Saccharin creates a slightly increased risk of bladder cancer in humans. Products containing saccharin are required to carry a warning label regarding the cancer risk."

"According to the National Cancer Institute, further studies showed that saccharin did not cause cancer in humans, and that the bladder tumors in rats were related to a mechanism that isn't relevant for humans.

"In 2000, the National Toxicology Program determined that saccharin should no longer be listed as a potential cancer-causing agent. Federal legislation followed in 2001, removing the requirement for the saccharin warning label." -U.S. Food and Drug Administration

• From his hub: Early tests showed that aspartame may have caused an increased incidence of brain tumors in rats. (Other animals tested showed no tumors.)

"According to FDA experts, there is no scientific evidence supporting a link between aspartame and any type of cancer. The National Toxicology Program, part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, also conducted aspartame studies in mice and found no cancer link." -U.S. Food and Drug Administration

The links between artificial sweeteners and cancer in humans is all hysteria over outdated and misinterpreted data, and has no all been debunked. There is *no* scientific evidence that any artificial sweeteners have *any* health risks. None except saccharin have ever carried any governmental warning labels, and as I quoted from the FDA the warning about potential cancer from saccharin was removed in 2001 when the lab rat studies were found to be flawed. (The increased cancer risk found in rats is a function of rat biology and the same elevated risk cannot occur in humans. There is no further evidence that saccharin increases risk of cancer in humans.)

To reiterate, there is *ZERO* accepted clinical evidence that artificial sweeteners of any kind pose any health risk at all to humans. It is mere superstition and paranoia to believe otherwise.

• From his hub: Although artificial sweeteners have no calories, they have no nutritive value either. Bottom line: Most people probably would be better off using moderate amounts of sugar. One teaspoon of sugar contains fewer than 25 calories. Used in moderation, its only adverse effect (except in people with diabetes and some other medical conditions) is to promote tooth decay, which is easily preventable and treatable.

Sugar is *not* safe. In excess, sugar adds many empty calories to one's diet and is a significant contributor to the American obesity epidemic. It is the primary culprit in tooth decay. Consuming a suger-rich food causes spikes in blood sugar levels, which force the body to flood itself with excessive amounts of insulin to clear the sugar. When this happens regularly this process leads to insulin resistance and can eventually develop into diabetes, and the blood sugar drop following the spike also produces false hunger signals which can lead to further overeating hours after consuming the sugar.

Artificial sweeteners have none of these deliterious effects. You cannot gain weight from them because they contain no calories. They do not erode tooth enamel. They do not directly impact blood sugar and are therefore safe for diabetics and do not cause sugar "rushes" or "crashes", nor do they promote feelings of hunger leading to unecessary eating.

Artificial sweeteners do not taste like sugar, that's true, and many people dislike some or all of the flavors of the different brands. But that is a matter of taste and acclimation. My mother noticed my and my brother's excessive soda intake when we were children, and switched us to strictly diet soda (which was pretty progressive of her considering diet sodas were far from mainstream when she switched us in the begining of the 80s). I grew up with saccharin- and then aspartame-flavored drinks, and to this day I prefer the taste of artificial sweeteners to sugar in all drinks (soda, coffee, tea, Kool-Aid -- everything).

My girlfriend and her son hate the taste of diet sodas, but they both grew up without ever having any diet soda at all. To palattes accustumed to the distinct flavor and quality of sugar of course artificial sweeteneres are different. They don't taste like sugar, but then non-fat and low calorie foods don't taste like their full fat/calorie counterparts, either. These products are substitutes designed to provide you with the sweetness of sugar without the deliterious health consequences of sugar. Because they are not sugar, it is unrealistic to expect them to tast like sugar. Do you really expect fat free mayonnaise to tast like regular mayonaisse? Does low-carb bread taste normal? No, these products are not and are not intended to be indistinguishable replacements for the products they emulat. They are substitutes that may involve flavor compromise in exchange for other benefits, but then the vast majority of foods that are good for you are not nearly as appetizing as the foods that are bad for you, so this is no detriment peculiar to artificial sweetener.

I'm not promoting artificial sweeteners as a universal replacement for sugar or suggesting people switch. If you don't like the taste, don't use them. However, one is giving up substantial dietary advantages in doing so, and must be ever more vigilant of rising sugar intake. Soda is a massive component of American sugar intake, and alone switching to diet soda can dramatically reduce caloric intake and even out blood sugar and insulin levels, without "dieting" at all.

Artificial sweeteners are an awesome example of chemical food engineering. They are doing the same things with synthetic fat substitutes to provide flavor without the caloric consequences (olestra). In the future I hope and believe we will have synthetic foods that taste like anything we want and are also 100% healthy, and even more nutritious for the body than anything we slay or pluck from the dirt. They've gotten a bad wrap because of the erroneous link to cancer which fueled an ignorant social hysteria, and because they have been mistreated by most people and failed to produce miraculous weight losses people were unreasonably expecting (which they never claimed they could do, as opposed to all kinds of snake-oil diet foods one can buy which *do* claim to help you lose weight even though they alone are useless for that).

Regardless of your stance on whether they are a good thing for us to have or not, get your facts straight because lots of popular opinion, as well as the info presented in the hub to which I'm responding, is not only misdirecting, it's false.