Talk:Cyclamate

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2018 and 6 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Samegbor.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

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 So I've deleted my earlier "discussion" here as "out-of-date", and have updated the article, instead.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?

It probably is. Just as Stevia was banned in the US, after an "anonymous complaint" was made to the FDA claiming ill effects that there is zero evidence of. There was quite a bit of talk about US sugar interests protecting their interests by seeing to it artificial sweeteners are held off of the market in the US.Wzrd1 (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems that after the studies in the mid to late sixties the FDA didn't take a position so Robert Finch of HEW restricted using cyclamate to dietary foods that would required additional labeling. Later in a House Committee of Government Operation the FDA was criticized for not acting, so they responded by over reacting with a total ban in 1970. Finch had left office by that time becoming the Lieutenant Governor of California counselor to the President. BaomoVW (talk) 06:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Tin-foil hat conspiracy theory on a sugar substitute. WP:FORUM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.3.17 (talk) 05:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and carefull attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 18:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The history of Cyclamate is incomplete

This article is clearly lacking a timeline. It does not specifically mention whether it's currently allowed, or forbidden, in a representative group of countries, and the reasons thereof. --AVM (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Cyclamate Sweetener Brands

I removed items from this list, as it looks like it was intended to be a list of sweeteners based partially or completely around cyclamate, not simply branded products which contain cyclamate (which could be a pointlessly long list).

(Addition of other products occurred with this edit).

This change was reverted with no explanation. I've explained my reasoning; the reverter didn't, so I'm reinstating it. Ubcule (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

A verification of its CAS number....

from a hard copy of Chemical Abstract is needed, as there are conflict infos on the internet

http://search.ccinfoweb.ccohs.ca/ccohs/jsp/search/search.jsp?QueryText=68476-78-8&Search.x=45&Search.y=11&Search=Search&MaxDocs=500&ResultStart=1&SortSpec=Score+desc&hTab=7&vTab=1&hideTabs=F&Coll=cid

http://baike.baidu.com/view/208280.htm

http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/ProductDetail.do?lang=en&N4=47827%7CSUPELCO&N5=SEARCH_CONCAT_PNO%7CBRAND_KEY&F=SPEC --222.64.20.217 (talk) 22:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

http://search.ccinfoweb.ccohs.ca/ccohs/jsp/search/search.jsp?QueryText=139-05-9&Search.x=40&Search.y=13&Search=Search&MaxDocs=500&ResultStart=1&SortSpec=Score+desc&hTab=7&vTab=1&hideTabs=F&Coll=cid --222.64.20.217 (talk) 22:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

http://product.cheminfo.gov.cn/K0112/K01120901.htm --222.64.20.217 (talk) 22:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

What is this?

"According to the Research Council committee cyclamate only increases the speed of cancer, accelerate the formation of tumours, and speed up tumour progression. In the 1960's cyclamate was banned from the United States because researchers found that "cyclamate/ saccharin mixtures” [4] cause cancer."

What is "the Research Council"? What is "the Research Council Committee"? The reference ([4]) is a portal to a subscription site, "EBSCO", not Science News. The writing weirdly ignores the rest of the article. The grammar is confused. If no one fixes this paragraph after another week or so, I will delete it. Rt3368 (talk) 06:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

health or history?

The health section of this article contains little information. If one wants to learn the effect of sodium cyclamate on heath and looks up the health section, one would get the impression that it's not too bad. The history section contains a lot more information on health than does the health section. It seems to me that the third and fourth paragraphs should be placed in health, instead of history, section. Ctchou (talk) 03:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the health section could do with a bit more detail regarding what the original health concerns were, and more detail about how the health concerns were not supported by scientific investigation. I don't think the FDA approval is directly relevant here, since in my opinion the health section should state what has been shown through scientific research about sodium cylamate's health effects, and not whether or not it has been banned by one particular body of one country. It could certainly use expansion though, I'll see if I can add some information at some point over the next few days. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

There are two awkward issues here: (1) Do cyclamates damage male reproductive organs, and (2) do cyclamates have a negative impact on health.

Suprisingly, the industry doesn't consider that (2) necessarily follows from (1). In rats and primate studies, cyclamates seem to be associated with the progressive death of seminal frond tissue, and a permanent wastage and shrinkage of the testes ("Irreversable Testicular Atrophy, "ITA"). Basically, if you're a guy, it gradually kills your balls.

I'm assuming that they didn't realise this when they first put it on the market because a rat probably has to lose quite a high percentage of testicular mass before a human notices, if they're not already looking out for the effect. Having realised that cyclamate sweeteners were probably slowly chemically castrating the US male cola-drinking population, the FDA rather sensibly withdrew it, before aggrieved small-balled Americans started sending death-threats.

Anyway, this is where it gets complicated. The industry's argued that the FDA only has the right to ban a substance based on heath grounds, and that changes in body shape and potential loss of sexual libido and fertility problems don't count as ill-health (presumably this is why the FDA originally cited the small apparent additional cancer risk as a reason for withdrawing approval, instead of mentioning the "shrunken sexual organs" issue). The industry's further argued that the impact on health should only be judged by life expectancy calculations, and that since testicular shrinkage is associated with reduced testosterone, and high testosterone levels are a risk factor for prostate cancer (and testosterone is blamed for the lower mean life expectancy of males compared to females), that actually, on heath grounds, testicular wastage could be argued to increase life expectancy, and therefore have a "positive" effect on LE. Testicular damage (says the argument) doesn't count as a negative effect on health, and if something /isn't/ classed as a public health issue, the government-funded FDA has no right to get involved spending taxpayers' resources spreading information that could damage people's legitimate businesses. It's argued that the FDA has no mandate to get involved in issues that might upset the users of a substance, but which aren't strictly health-related. So there's an implicit threat that if the FDA goes around telling people about ITA, they might be sued, or there might be political pressure to cut back on their funding.

From an FDA point of view, having lawyers telling them that maybe they're not supposed to mention ITA in their reports is possibly a slight relief, because it'd be kinda awkward to have to tell the US public what this substance does, and that they originally allowed it into the US food supply in the first place.

I think that ITA should be mentioned in the article, but since some people are adamant that ITA isn't a public health issue, if it gets put into the heath section, someone's liable to delete it. ErkDemon (talk) 18:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Save that ITA IS a health issue, as gonads are organs. THAT said, the research is mixed, only applying to rats and mice and not reflected in human health in nations that use the sweetener. As in there is no increased ITA incidences in said nations that consume cyclamate.Wzrd1 (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

No, in the old papers that I looked at way back, they noted the same testicular atrophy effect when they tested cyclamates on primates. I'm not sure how we can say that cyclamates aren't associated with ITA in countries that allow cyclamates, unless we do some research. And as noted, the FDA seem to have been warned not to fund, promote or encourage any such research (or disseminate the results of any such research), since industry lawyers argue that this would involve the FDA going beyond their legal remit. The other thing about South American countries where cyclamates are legal is that if you are a public health official living in a society with a large poor population and a church that teaches against using contraception, you might see a potential cylamate side-effect that reduces fertility as being not altogether undesirable. So the fact that some of these countries allow cyclamates doesn't neccessarily mean that their officials don't believe that the effect is real. ErkDemon (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

This talk page was more informative than the main article page. 73.218.186.141 (talk) 00:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

What are the ingredients of Canada Sweet N Low?

Article says has cyclamate, but does not list any other ingredients. This is a serious omission in the article. (PeacePeace (talk) 03:36, 11 March 2018 (UTC))

This article is about sodium cyclamate, not Sweet N Low. I'd suggest you take a look at a box of the stuff or search online. - SummerPhD^v2.0 06:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 15 December 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 08:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

---

Sodium cyclamate → Cyclamate – This article should be moved back to Cyclamate. It is irrelevant what ion it has been combined with, calcium cyclamate is also very common, and Cyclamate is the common name. Our article saccharin is not under "sodium saccharin" although that is the common form used, and drug articles are rarely named "X hydrochloride". "Cyclamate" is the title used in Britannica [1], Encyclopedia.com [2], and this chemical encyclopedia [3] 194.105.229.30 (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support. You conviced me and I read no objection. Hosortyr (talk) 01:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
• Closing comment: I note several previous moves. Hopefully this will lead to stability. Andrewa (talk) 08:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There are multiple broken source links.

Some of the listed sites have changed the link locations, and the subsequent sources are now broken links. For example, the `FDA Talk Paper, NAS Report on Cyclamate` cite note #8 is just *gone* and has no backup on any internet archives. I believe the correct or an alternate source is https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/edu.ucsf.industrydocuments.artifacts/r/p/l/c/rplc0024/rplc0024.pdf, which I have saved here: https://web.archive.org/web/20220112041031/https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/edu.ucsf.industrydocuments.artifacts/r/p/l/c/rplc0024/rplc0024.pdf

We really should be using archived versions of links instead of direct links... Hyper0sphere (talk) 04:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Brands

Hermesetas

Hermesetas does not contain cyclamate and never has, so far as I can determine. It was originally saccharin, and has been a blend of aspartame and acesulfame since 1988, according to their official site. I am removing "Hermesetas" from this page; if you have verifiable knowledge that the product is formulated with cyclamate in some countries, e.g. UK, AU, please restore it with appropriate conditions specified. --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)