Toxicology: Bitterness About Sweets

“We have appeared to waffle it,” fretted HEW Secretary Robert Finch. Some people in the Food and Drug Administration, he said, “have been overzealous” in their warnings, while “others have gone too far the other way.” Finch had good reason to be disturbed; there was growing confusion last week about the latest flare-up in the controversy over the safety of a substance that millions of Americans consume daily: the artificial sweetener, cyclamate.

At the center of the cyclamate hassle was Dr. Jacqueline Verrett, a veteran FDA research scientist who, since 1966, has been testing cyclamate on chicken embryos. Of a total of 4,000 embryos injected, 15% have shown obvious deformities: feet attached directly to the hip, toes fused together, “flipper” legs, malformed spines and missing pelvises. An earlier FDA test had shown chromosome breakage in rats that were injected with cyclohexylamine, a metabolic product of cyclamate. Concluded Dr. Verrett, “I don’t recommend cyclamate for chicks, and I don’t recommend it for people.” After discussing the results of her work on a television program, she drew an immediate rebuttal from FDA Commissioner Dr. Herbert Ley Jr. “Cyclamates are safe within the present state of knowledge and scientific opinion available to me,” he said.

Abbott Laboratories, the world’s biggest cyclamate producer, was quick to agree. At a press conference last week, an Abbott official declared that “cyclamate is safe for human consumption as presently used in the diet.” Finch, too, had his doubts about the chick tests. “We ought to have more than two species before we indict an agent,” he chided. “We can push too hard, too fast, and make statements that may or may not be true and create all kinds of problems.”

Dr. Verrett was furious. “My studies were not false,” she said, insisting that on the basis of her work and that of her associate, Dr. Marvin Legator, cyclamate may well produce deformities, transmissible mutations or cancer—or all three. “Mr. Finch does not seem to consider that the next species might be human. It’s impossible to predict what the effects might be in other animal species, including man, but the fact that we do have a positive result indicates the need for further investigation of its effects.” Dr. Verrett accused the FDA of dragging its feet, pointing out that her conclusions were very firm almost a year ago and that they had been communicated to higher officials. “Dr. Ley says that at this point in time, cyclamates are safe,” she argued. “I say the safety of cyclamates has not been established scientifically.”

Increasing Consumption. There have been other warnings about the widely used sweetener. Last November, the FDA was advised by the National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council that “totally unrestricted use of the cyclamates is not warranted.” As a result, the agency last April began considering new labeling requirements for artificially sweetened foods and beverages. The labels would indicate cyclamate content in milligrams and would recommend a maximum daily intake of 3,500 mg. for adults and 1,200 for children (the cyclamate content of twelve-ounce cans of artificially sweetened soft drinks ranges from 250 mg. to 1,000 mg.). But the FDA has not yet given any indication about when—or if—it will establish the requirements.

Meanwhile, the use of cyclamates is increasing rapidly even among non-dieters. In 1963, the total U.S. consumption was 5,000,000 Ibs. The estimate for 1970 is 21 million Ibs.—70% of it in soft drinks, the remainder scattered through a diverse range of food products, including candy, bacon, diet gum, some cookies and children’s chewable vitamins.

As a result of last week’s tempest, Dr. Ley has asked the Academy-Research Council to review the work of Dr. Verrett and others and to report to him in 30 days. “At that time,” he promises, “I will decide the best method of restricting the use of cyclamates.” But Dr. Verrett is still upset. “I am supposed to write a summary of my findings as soon as possible. But I’m having reservations about submitting them in view of Mr. Finch’s comments that they are worthless.”