"FDA urged to review sweetener’s link to cancer
Aspartame, often used in soda, hiked risk of disease in rats, new study says

Updated: 5:25 p.m. PT June 25, 2007
WASHINGTON - A U.S. consumer group called for an urgent Food and Drug Administration review of the safety of aspartame on Monday, but the FDA said there was no immediate need to do so despite a new study showing the sweetener may cause cancer.

Italian researchers published a new study last week that showed aspartame — widely used in soft drinks — might cause leukemia, lymphoma and breast cancer in rats."

The whole thing: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19424599/


That's an update to this story, just a couple of months ago...

"FDA: Sugar substitute doesn't cause cancer
Agency's review of study finds no link between low-cal sweetener, disease"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18236994/



Bribery and deception, I suppose.....:rolleyes:

Typical Republican criminality. Just like saying the air around ground-zero was safe to breathe right after 9-11.

I want to see numbers. Practically everything contributes in at least a small way to some dire consequence. What I want to do is my own risk analysis. Am I willing to increase my chance of getting cancer by .00000000000001% in order to have a zero-calorie sweetener that tastes pretty good and has a reasonable shelf life?

Some of those other sugar substitutes may be healthier, but they taste terrible. Stevia tastes like pure licorice, which may be okay in some situations but not in my tea.

Life is an endless series of risks. We can't dodge them all and some of them are so minor as to be the province of hypochondriacs. You're something like ten thousand times more likely to be killed in a car wreck on your way to the airport than you are once you board the plane, but we continue to put up with draconian impositions on air travel, while I'll bet neither you nor anyone you know has ever reported the habitual drunk drivers you personally know to the police. And even if you did, there's nothing the police can do until they actually catch one in the act. They don't make them take off their shoes before boarding their vehicles!

Does anyone stop to think that Bin Laden's band of Saudi hijackers ruined hijacking for every other terrorist on earth? If you're sitting on an airliner and a group of wild-eyed crazies stands up and yells, "People, if you do everything we tell you, none of you will be hurt," will you believe them? No you won't, and thirty or forty of you will be brave enough to rush them. A few will of you will be killed in the fight but the hijacking will fail, most of the passengers will survive, and no buildings will ever again be knocked down by Muzzie Fundies.

Yet we still drag ourselves to airports three hours early and allow a bunch of leering civil "servants" to treat us like illegal immigrants. It's irrational risk analysis. We should be putting those resources into securing freighter ports, where only a small percentage of cargo is inspected.

Don't let the government do the same thing to your kitchen. Risk analysis is too complicated and too delicate to be left in the hands of the morons who brought you the War on Drugs.

Typical Republican criminality. Just like saying the air around ground-zero was safe to breathe right after 9-11.

So is the air around a Republican safe to breathe? I think I smell BS.

Actually, Fraggle Rocker, the last time that I heard of that the passengers rushed a hijacker, he was the only one who was injured and he barely survived.

So is the air around a Republican safe to breathe? I'd say "barely." As long as they don't open their predominantly christian mouths and spew.

Fraggle Rocker, I agree with you. I'd like to see more studies done, by independent researchers. Not the FDA, and not corporations that benefit from selling aspartame.

I also think Americans are led to blow many things out of proportion by our corporate media. It's so sad how over-worked and ignorant the american population is, in general, and how easily led they are by criminals.

I recently heard that many sodas (like coca-cola and pepsi and many others) contain both sodium benzoate and ascorbic acid (vitamin C), which, when combined, form benzene, a very dangerous substance that leads to leukemia and other forms of cancer. So, is soda now as dangerous as cigarettes in the long run?

Next year they will say equal saves your from ass cancer...they don't know shit about food(FDA).

I think they do know about food, and drugs, they just don't want to let us know they know. They are trying to cover their asses and those of their friends with money in the pharmaceutical and food industries. Another republican-controlled criminal organization nowadays. Just like the EPA. FEMA. Even the Justice Department. Criminals in charge of currently criminal organizations.

It's not criminal if there's money in it. Remember the lawyers! They can BUY justice! :rolleyes:

Another republican-controlled criminal organization nowadays. Just like the EPA. FEMA. Even the Justice Department. Criminals in charge of currently criminal organizations.
What gets me is that this feeling seems to be so widespread in America, where's the revolution? Where's the protests? Seems like most people realize what's happening but don't have the will to actually do anything about it.

It's inconvenient to get off your asses? Or maybe you just don't know WHAT to do?

I think young people nowdays lack the passion we saw in the 60s....

come on now. We have escalades and HDTV to shut us up. Big corps invest a lot to keep us complacent with all these material goodies. They've mastered the art of supressing revolution.

I think it's just amazing how well governments and corporations have been able to control the population. It's gotta be the 8th wonder of the world, that you can fuck people over at every opportunity and have them so dazed that they just bend over and wait for the next one.

Just use natural honey.

Do you want me to become a fat cow!?!!?? :bugeye:

:fart:

:poke:

I think it's just amazing how well governments and corporations have been able to control the population. It's gotta be the 8th wonder of the world, that you can fuck people over at every opportunity and have them so dazed that they just bend over and wait for the next one.
It's called the "american way of life"...

Or is it "american dream"...?

Or maybe "american justice"!?!?!?!?!?!?!? :runaway: :runaway: :runaway:

come on now. We have escalades and HDTV to shut us up. Big corps invest a lot to keep us complacent with all these material goodies. They've mastered the art of supressing revolution.
Yes! Let's organize ourselves and show them that they cannot suppress our revolution any longer!!!! I'm working on a new blog RIGHT NOW! Log in tomorrow and I might have it ready already! :bugeye:

Welcome to sciforums, btw... :)

We haven't reached that critical point yet. We're headed that way though. Watch out "bushes" and "cheneys" and even "clintons" and "obamas" of the world.

I like the way everyone here just automatically assumes that this Italian study is correct and that the FDA is involved in a conspiracy with big corporations to hide the truth, without even considering the possibility that this new study is either wrong or being blown massively out of proportion by its authors in an attempt to get research money or publicity for their institute. What about the giant pile of studies showing that aspartame doesn’t cause cancer? Were those scientists (and the peer-reviewed journals that published them) also “in on it?”

If you think that the FDA is in bed with companies, how do you explain that fact that the FDA keeps making it harder and harder for companies to bring products to market? If you actually take a look at the behavior of the FDA over the last decade or so, you’ll see that the FDA is constantly expanding the number of products that it regulates or bans outright. How does that fit in with your conspiracy theories?

Oh, wait…you did take the time to actually familiarize yourself with the FDA’s recent policies before you assumed that they were in bed with corporations, didn’t you?

Edit: by the way, it's not like aspartame is some sort of mysterious substance. It's two common amino acids (that you get loads of any time you eat any food that has protein in it) and a methyl ester that turns into methanol upon digestion. Since there's no question about the aminoacids being safe, literally the only thing left to argue about is the methanol. A can of diet soda would get you something like 20-30 microliters of methanol. This is trivial, and methanol is found in small amounts in all sorts of foods.

I like the way everyone here just automatically assumes that this Italian study is correct and that the FDA is involved in a conspiracy with big corporations to hide the truth, without even considering the possibility that this new study is either wrong or being blown massively out of proportion by its authors in an attempt to get research money or publicity for their institute. What about the giant pile of studies showing that aspartame doesn’t cause cancer? Were those scientists (and the peer-reviewed journals that published them) also “in on it?”
I would like to see that pile.

As I shown in the beginning of the thread, independent studies keep saying aspartame is dangerous. And it doesn't take a very logical person to notice that aspartame is not a healthy substance.

If you think that the FDA is in bed with companies, how do you explain that fact that the FDA keeps making it harder and harder for companies to bring products to market?
Barriers to entry. Those barriers are against new companies. They are making it harder for the new competition, thus protecting their buddies.

If you actually take a look at the behavior of the FDA over the last decade or so, you’ll see that the FDA is constantly expanding the number of products that it regulates or bans outright. How does that fit in with your conspiracy theories?
Which conspiracy theories? Oh, and btw, when are they going to ban tobacco? It's shown to cause cancer in all studies, and yet they won't ban it. Why?

:rolleyes:

Oh, wait…you did take the time to actually familiarize yourself with the FDA’s recent policies before you assumed that they were in bed with corporations, didn’t you?
So they don't have absoulte power to seize goods anymore? Nor absolute power to make regulations? It's not a self-regulating agency anymore? :rolleyes:

I would like to see that pile.

I'll try to get it to you on monday, when I can use the university database.

As I shown in the beginning of the thread, independent studies keep saying aspartame is dangerous.
In what quantities? Quantities that people would be likely to actually consume?
And it doesn't take a very logical person to notice that aspartame is not a healthy substance.
See my above edit on the logic of aspartame danger.

Barriers to entry. Those barriers are against new companies. They are making it harder for the new competition, thus protecting their buddies.
Doesn't explain why they are also coming down so hard on new products from established companies.
Which conspiracy theories? Oh, and btw, when are they going to ban tobacco? It's shown to cause cancer in all studies, and yet they won't ban it. Why?
The FDA would LOVE the authority to regulate tobacco. Congress hasn't given it to them yet. Now I agree that the tobacco companies are almost certainly using bribery (er, excuse me, making “campaign contributions”) to keep that from happening, but the FDA definitely wants it.

http://www.nacsonline.com/NR/exeres/00003b5awuxdjkeyylsgikgz/GeneralUse_Government.asp?NRMODE=Published&NRORIGINALURL=%2fNACS%2fGovernment%2fTobacco%2fIss ueUpdate_FDARegulation%2ehtm&NRNODEGUID=%7b3DD85051-522C-4FD6-A26F-C80DC6E2729A%7d&NRQUERYTERMINATOR=1&cookie%5Ftest=1

Typical Republican criminality.

Now now, don't stoop to the level of the brainwashed idiots here that always try and make something out to be a "liberal-only" problem. It's political criminality, and that includes Democrats as well. Anyone in a powerful position is most likely corrupt. Blaming things on one group just helps create a smokescreen so people start arguing left vs right issues, not allowing themselves enough attention span to remember who they really should be upset with -- our politicians -- while allowing all of them to get away like a smooth criminal.

If you think that the FDA is in bed with companies, how do you explain that fact that the FDA keeps making it harder and harder for companies to bring products to market?

Making products harder to bring into the market is good for powerful companies because it allows their lobbying groups to still put their products out on the market while screwing the little guy who doesn't have politicians in their back pocket. In other words, it helps create monopolies.

Besides, if the FDA did absolutely nothing, it'd be a wee bit too obvious, no? So they take little steps which make it look like they do care, while making sure those laws don't affect the big boys thanks to the influence of our leaders. You know, just like what politicians do to make laws apply to others and not themselves.

- N

I think everything causes cancer, up to an including a mother's love.

I just went to take a couple vitamins and checked the back. Lo and behold, it had aspartame as well, lol. Maybe they cancel each other out? :shrug:

- N

A big part of this thread is a farce. Even the title is purposely misleading. The report clearly says, "...might cause leukemia, lymphoma and breast cancer in rats."

So the OP willingly distorted "might cause" into "causes." How dishonest can anybody be????????????

I just went to take a couple vitamins and checked the back. Lo and behold, it had aspartame as well, lol. Maybe they cancel each other out? :shrug:

- N
Those vitamins are not real. They are engineered. Try to find real ones, and they won't have aspartame in them.

A big part of this thread is a farce. Even the title is purposely misleading. The report clearly says, "...might cause leukemia, lymphoma and breast cancer in rats."

So the OP willingly distorted "might cause" into "causes." How dishonest can anybody be????????????
The report clearly says that the scientists are URGING the FDA to reconsider. URGING. You know what the word URGING means? :rolleyes:

Anyone that thinks aspartame is harmless should do a little research on its history. Aspartame was actually not approved by the FDA for something like sixteen years. It was only when Reagan got into office and the FDA had a new head that Donald Rumsfeld, who was high up in the company that had the rights to aspartame, was able to pull some strings to get it approved. I might have gotten a couple minor points wrong here but the major plot line is true. which is:
1) Aspartame not approved by FDA for years.
2) FDA suddenly approves aspartame when Reagan gets into office and Rumsfeld had some formal connection with the company that would profit and Rumsfeld used his connections with the Reagan administration to get it approved.
-------------

I think everything causes cancer, up to an including a mother's love.

I know the list gets longer and longer.....if we avoided everything they
are claiming may cause cancer.....we wouldn't be able to eat or breathe anymore......shit can we have sex that isn't on the list yet is it????:eek:

The report clearly says that the scientists are URGING the FDA to reconsider. URGING. You know what the word URGING means? :rolleyes:

Certainly I do. But that doesn't change the fact that you deliberately distorted the facts in that article to suit your own agenda.

And what makes your dishonesty even worse is that I think I remember you claiming somewhere else that the media was/is biased!!!!! So what should we call you?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Certainly I do. But that doesn't change the fact that you deliberately distorted the facts in that article to suit your own agenda.

And what makes your dishonesty even worse is that I think I remember you claiming somewhere else that the media was/is biased!!!!! So what should we call you?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Man! You are like a huge ballon! Like a Zeplin or something like that!!! :eek:

:D

How about reading grover's post. Maybe that's a start? :rolleyes:

Here:

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=aspartame+donald+rumsfeld+reagan&meta=

Wow... look at this. Mosanto, that corporation that was involved in the whole scandal with cow hormones is involved with aspartame!!!! :eek:

Check it out!
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:cVlNyMYnyjcJ:www.rense.com/general33/legal.htm+aspartame+donald+rumsfeld+reagan&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=ca

Thanks grover!!!!!!!! :)

Here's what I found in wikipedia:

"The head of the FDA, Jere E. Goyan, who had not approved legalization of aspartame, due to the brain cancer in rats issue, was fired on the first day Ronald Reagan was president of the U.S. (1981). Reagan hired Arthur Hayes MD (FDA Commissioner 1981-1983), who legalized aspartame a year later. Reagan supporter Donald Rumsfeld was president and later CEO of G. D. Searle & Company from 1977 to 1985.[77][78] Arthur Hull Hayes MD was a defense contractor before he was head of the FDA. In November 1983 Hayes was under fire for accepting corporate gifts. He quit and joined Searle's public-relations firm as senior medical advisor. Searle lawyer Robert B. Shapiro, renamed aspartame NutraSweet. Monsanto purchased Searle. Rumsfeld received a $12 million bonus. Shapiro later became Monsanto president.

Several members of the FDA board left their jobs after stevia (aspartame's main competitor then) was banned in 1991. They were all hired at Nutrasweet in higher paying jobs, according to national records. Dr. Michael Friedman quit the FDA when Jane Henney was selected to become the permanent FDA commissioner (1999). Friedman elected to sign with G. D. Searle as a senior vice president at a purported $500,000 a year. He later accepted a position with Monsanto.

In February 2007, Page to Pantry, a radio program on the public radio station KPFK 90.7FM in Los Angeles, reported that aspartame was refused approval by the FDA for eight years before finally being approved under the leadership of Arthur Hayes. Immediately after, Hayes left the FDA and went to work for the artificial sweetener industry. This so-called "Revolving-Door" policy seems to be very common in the food additive industry."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame_controversy

Man! You are like a huge ballon! Like a Zeplin or something like that!!! :eek:

:D

Not sure what a 'ballon' is - perhaps you meant 'balloon?' :D

But that's not the point at all - and neither is the chemical industry or the "revolving door" at the FDA.

What IS the point is that I'm calling your hand on deliberatly distorting "may cause" into "causes." That's a distortion on purpose and NO ONE should get away with it.

It puts your degree of honesty and personal integrity in strong doubt.

I have the perfect solution!
If you don't like aspartame, don't consume it.

Personally, I agree with Truthseeker. I get headaches every time I eat products containing aspartame, before even hearing about the 'controversy'. But we're missing the point I think: something that needs to be laced with factory-made chemicals in order to not taste like crap is not good for your health. Even if aspartame has no harmful long term effects, it doesn't change the fact that you are feeding yourself garbage.

I have the perfect solution!
If you don't like aspartame, don't consume it.

Personally, I agree with Truthseeker. I get headaches every time I eat products containing aspartame, before even hearing about the 'controversy'. But we're missing the point I think: something that needs to be laced with factory-made chemicals in order to not taste like crap is not good for your health. Even if aspartame has no harmful long term effects, it doesn't change the fact that you are feeding yourself garbage.

I've been ahead of that game for a VERY long time. I avoid all diet drinks and diet foods. I've been offered some from time to time but none of them really taste good to me and/or have a bad after-taste.

Not sure what a 'ballon' is - perhaps you meant 'balloon?'
Oh voooops! That was a missspelin... :D

But that's not the point at all - and neither is the chemical industry or the "revolving door" at the FDA.

What IS the point is that I'm calling your hand on deliberatly distorting "may cause" into "causes." That's a distortion on purpose and NO ONE should get away with it.

It puts your degree of honesty and personal integrity in strong doubt.
I'm sorry you didn't read the whole article. Here's the part a quote- the thrid paragraph:

"This is the second study by the same lab showing that aspartame causes cancer in rats,” Center for Science in the Public Interest executive director Michael Jacobson said in a telephone interview.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19424599/


I guess you didn't read past the second paragraph.... :D

:poke:

I have the perfect solution!
If you don't like aspartame, don't consume it.
Yes, as long as you KNOW it is toxic for you. Like smokers, for instance.

Oh voooops! That was a missspelin... :D


I'm sorry you didn't read the whole article. Here's the part a quote- the thrid paragraph:


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19424599/


I guess you didn't read past the second paragraph.... :D

:poke:

Oh, but I did. The joker who said that misspoke - just as you did. Nothing in the article stated it CAUSED cancer - just that it increased the CHANCE of it. And that was the exact same lab both times - where's the independent confirmation that it even increased the risk? I'll never accept anything until it's shown to be accurate by independent means. That's just the way that good science works.

Oh, but I did. The joker who said that misspoke - just as you did. Nothing in the article stated it CAUSED cancer - just that it increased the CHANCE of it. And that was the exact same lab both times - where's the independent confirmation that it even increased the risk? I'll never accept anything until it's shown to be accurate by independent means. That's just the way that good science works.
Funny how much you sound like a tobacco exec saying that cigarettes haven't been proven to be addictive, or the Bush administration saying global warming hasn't been proven to be caused by humans.

Funny how much you sound like a tobacco exec saying that cigarettes haven't been proven to be addictive, or the Bush administration saying global warming hasn't been proven to be caused by humans.

Wow - that's a GIANT leap from what I'm saying!!!!!!!!!!!!!

All I've really said is that results from a single lab shouldn't be taken to prove anything. Period!!!!!

crap. i was drinking diet pepsi right when i saw this.

Wow - that's a GIANT leap from what I'm saying!!!!!!!!!!!!!

All I've really said is that results from a single lab shouldn't be taken to prove anything. Period!!!!!
You'll have to forgive me, but I still think you sound like a tobacco exec. Besides, there have been numerous studies over the years showing a link between aspartame and cancer.

You'll have to forgive me, but I still think you sound like a tobacco exec. Besides, there have been numerous studies over the years showing a link between aspartame and cancer.

Interesting. Can you provide us some links to just a few of these 'numerous' studies?

Oh, but I did. The joker who said that misspoke - just as you did. Nothing in the article stated it CAUSED cancer - just that it increased the CHANCE of it. And that was the exact same lab both times - where's the independent confirmation that it even increased the risk? I'll never accept anything until it's shown to be accurate by independent means. That's just the way that good science works.
Can you please stop flat out denying what is written!!?!?!?!?

"This is the second study by the same lab showing that aspartame causes cancer in rats,”

:bugeye:

Wow - that's a GIANT leap from what I'm saying!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Really? How so? We keep giving you evidence and you keep turning a blind eye to it right out denying it! Seems like the same to me...

All I've really said is that results from a single lab shouldn't be taken to prove anything. Period!!!!!
You didn't read the article, did you? :rolleyes:

crap. i was drinking diet pepsi right when i saw this.
LOL! :D

Really? How so? We keep giving you evidence and you keep turning a blind eye to it right out denying it! Seems like the same to me...

Not in the least. Remember the two guys in the lab in Utah (I think) that said they had developed cold fusion? That was ONE lab. When no other lab could reproduce the same results they went down in BIG flames. All I'm asking for is confirmation.


You didn't read the article, did you? :rolleyes:

Yes - already told you I did! Exactly what part do you think I've missed????

Does anything not "cause cancer"?

Interesting. Can you provide us some links to just a few of these 'numerous' studies?

Here is one from over 10 years ago: http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9611/18/aspartame/

Okay, last week I said that there was a giant pile of studies showing that aspartame does not cause cancer. TruthSeeker asked to see the pile, so here it is. Note that they are not simply press releases put out by some advocacy group, a link to a news study with vague information, etc. These are peer-reviewed studies that were conducted by universities and published in respected academic journals.

Title: Low-calorie sweeteners and other sugar substitutes: A review of the safety issues
Author(s): Kroger M (Kroger, Manfred), Meister K (Meister, Kathleen), Kava R (Kava, Ruth)
Source: COMPREHENSIVE REVIEWS IN FOOD SCIENCE AND FOOD SAFETY 5 (2): 35-47 APR 2006

Title: Aspartame not linked to cancer
Author(s): Abegaz EG (Abegaz, Eyassu G.)
Source: ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES 115 (1): A16-A17 JAN 2007

Title: Artificial sweeteners and cancer risk in a network of case-control studies
Author(s): Gallus S (Gallus, S.), Scotti L (Scotti, L.), Negri E (Negri, E.), Talamini R (Talamini, R.), Franceschi S (Franceschi, S.), Montella M (Montella, M.), Giacosa A (Giacosa, A.), Dal Maso L (Dal Maso, L.), La Vecchia C (La Vecchia, C.)
Source: ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY 18 (1): 40-44 JAN 2007

Title: Artificial sweeteners - do they bear a carcinogenic risk?
Author(s): Weihrauch MR, Diehl V
Source: ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY 15 (10): 1460-1465 OCT 2004

Title: Aspartame consumption in relation to childhood brain tumor risk: Results from a case-control study
Author(s): Gurney JG, Pogoda JM, Holly EA, Hecht SS, PrestonMartin S
Source: JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE 89 (14): 1072-1074 JUL 16 1997


That's just the first 5 things that popped up when I did a search. I can provide many more. How many do you want?

Oh, and I looked up the study that TruthSeeker mentioned in the opening post. It found a very slight increase in tumors in rats that were only allowed to drink water that contained about 500 times the concentration of aspartame that's normally found in diet soda. For some reason the MSNBC article that TruthSeeker linked to forgot to mention that :rolleyes: Yes, people, that is what you have been freaking out over in this thread. A study that showed that you would have a very slight increase of cancer risk if you drink nothing but water that contains 500 times more aspartame than a regular diet soda.

So now I'll throw out the same challenge to all the people here who seem to be convinced that aspartame causes cancer - let's see some peer-reviewed studies from nonbiased sources linking aspartame to cancer. Note that I'm only interested in studies involving amounts that people are reasonably likely to consume. Anything will cause health problems if you consume ridiculous amounts of it.

Edit: If you think you have found a study showing aspartame to be dangerous in reasonable doses, please take a minute to actually check the study before you post it. It's annoying to have to dig up an article that someone posts, only to find that it's from a biased source, involved huge amounts of aspartame, was never actually published in a peer-reviewed journal, etc.

Here is one from over 10 years ago: http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9611/18/aspartame/

This is not a study showing a link between aspartame and cancer. It simply points out that the rate of brain cancer in the US stared increasing around the same time that aspartame was introduced. A more careful examination shows that in fact the rate had begun to increase before aspartame was introduced, then leveled off and did not increase even though aspartame consumption was increasing.

This is not a study showing a link between aspartame and cancer. It simply points out that the rate of brain cancer in the US stared increasing around the same time that aspartame was introduced. A more careful examination shows that in fact the rate had begun to increase before aspartame was introduced, then leveled off and did not increase even though aspartame consumption was increasing.

Are you kidding me? The title is "Study suggests link between aspartame and brain cancer."

Are you kidding me? The title is "Study suggests link between aspartame and brain cancer."

WTF? I just explained this to you. They said that it "suggests" a link because they noticed that the rate of brain cancer went up around the time that aspartame was introduced. That does indeed "suggest" a possible link. But, as has already been explained, a closer look at the data shows that the brain cancer rate started going up before aspartame was introduced, and then leveled off even though aspartame consumption increased. Which isn't consistent with aspartame being responsible for the increase. But now I'm just repeating myself.

Well, you made it sound like that additional information is in the study. There is no mention of a "levling off" in ths study " or "closer analysis." Do you have a link showing these things?

I watched a movie last night called Sweet Misery. It confirmed everything that Truthseeker has been saying. His facts are accurate. Read-only needs to read more (or at least watch more Free Speech TV).

After many years of rejection by the FDA, Searle (maker of aspartame) hired Donald Rumsfeld as president of the company. He tried, politically, to get the FDA's board of inquiry to approve aspartame, but they still wouldn't, due to the fact that Searle's research (shoddy at best) nonetheless showed that aspartame ate holes in mice's brains. When Reagan took office as president in 1981, one of his first executive orders was to tell the head of the FDA that he couldn't take any further actions, with regard to anything, thus making him impotent. As soon as Reagan got his own man, Arthur Hull Hayes, installed as head of the FDA, one of the first things he did was reject the opinions of his scientists in the FDA and approved aspartame. Two years later, when Hayes left the FDA, he went to work for the law firm that represented Searle.

There is strong circumstantial evidence that links aspartame (which can be found in many diet sodas, like coke, pepsi and seven-up, diet crystal light lemonade, equal, nutra-sweet, and the list goes on and on) to brain tumors in humans, methyl alcohol poisoning (wood alcohol), blindness, symptoms similar to those for multiple sclerosis, lupus, and the list goes on and on. It is believed by many that aspartame causes 200-300 deaths a year in the U.S., at a minimum.

I need to find a list of all products that aspartame can be found in. My time is up today though, so maybe someone else would be interested in looking for a list and linking to it here? If not, I'll try to find one tomorrow.

Stop consuming aspartame!!

Nasor, you only gave the titles of the studies, and in not even one of them does it say aspartame is safe. Interesting, eh? :rolleyes:

Well, you made it sound like that additional information is in the study. There is no mention of a "levling off" in ths study " or "closer analysis." Do you have a link showing these things?
"Aspartame and brain cancer" by Roberts, H.J. in LANCET 349 (9048): 362-362 FEB 1 1997 discusses it all pretty thoroughly.

Nasor, you only gave the titles of the studies, and in not even one of them does it say aspartame is safe. Interesting, eh? :rolleyes:
Look, are you actually interested in learning about this topic or are you just out to defend a view that you've already made up your mind on? I just gave you five citations for peer-reviewed, scientific articles from mainstream journals that all present strong evidence that aspartame does not cause cancer. If you have a genuine desire to look at the evidence, you can go to a library or university database and look them up. If, on the other hand, you want to believe that aspartame causes cancer and don't particularly care where you get your health information, by all means continue to rely on general-audience news stories that sensationalize study results to make them seem more interesting.

I realize that perhaps I am being too optimistic, but I am hoping to have a genuinely scientific discussion that involves more than just throwing around links to MSNBC articles, references to overtly biased documentaries, etc. - but this is a science message board after all, so I figure it's worth a shot. Yes, this will require at least some willingness on everyone's part to actually read scientific articles and do research that's a little more in-depth and simply googling "aspartame causes cancer studies," mindlessly copy-and-pasting whatever you find on www.omgtehaspertameisbad.org, or "proving" things with links to CNN articles. Yes, I am giving you references to articles that you probably can't simply click on to read, unless you are lucky enough to have access to a university database. I realize that this is inconvenient, and that you might have to make a trip to a library or something to look these articles up. But I am giving you references to peer-reviewed university studies that were published in respected academic journals. If you are genuinely interested in this, you can take the time to look them up and learn.

TruthSeeker, since you seem to think that I am lying about what's in these studies, here is the abstract for the Journal of Oncology article that I mentioned earlier:

Abstract

Background: The role of sweeteners on cancer risk has been widely debated over the last few decades. To provide additional information on saccharin and other sweeteners (mainly aspartame), we considered data from a large network of case-control studies.

Methods: An integrated network of case-control studies has been conducted between 1991 and 2004 in Italy. Cases were 598 patients with incident, histologically confirmed cancers of the oral cavity and pharynx, 304 of the oesophagus, 1225 of the colon, 728 of the rectum, 460 of the larynx, 2569 of the breast, 1031 of the ovary, 1294 of the prostate and 767 of the kidney (renal cell carcinoma). Controls were 7028 patients (3301 men and 3727 women) admitted to the same hospitals as cases for acute, non-neoplastic disorders. Odds ratios (ORs), and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs), were derived by unconditional logistic regression models.

Results: The ORs for consumption of saccharin were 0.83 (95% CI 0.30-2.29) for cancers of the oral cavity and pharynx, 1.58 (95% CI 0.59-4.25) for oesophageal, 0.95 (95% CI 0.67-1.35) for colon, 0.93 (95% CI 0.60-1.45) for rectal, 1.55 (95% CI 0.76-3.16) for laryngeal, 1.01 (95% CI 0.77-1.33) for breast, 0.46 (95% CI 0.29-0.74) for ovarian, 0.91 (95% CI 0.59-1.40) for prostate and 0.79 (95% CI 0.49-1.28) for kidney cancer. The ORs for consumption of other sweeteners, mainly aspartame, were 0.77 (95% CI 0.39-1.53) for cancers of the oral cavity and pharynx, 0.77 (95% CI 0.34-1.75) for oesophageal, 0.90 (95% CI 0.70-1.16) for colon, 0.71 (95% CI 0.50-1.02) for rectal, 1.62 (95% CI 0.84-3.14) for laryngeal, 0.80 (95% CI 0.65-0.97) for breast, 0.75 (95% CI 0.56-1.00) for ovarian, 1.23 (95% CI 0.86-1.76) for prostate and 1.03 (95% CI 0.73-1.46) for kidney cancer. A significant inverse trend in risk for increasing categories of total sweeteners was found for breast and ovarian cancer, and a direct one for laryngeal cancer.

Conclusion: The present work indicates a lack of association between saccharin, aspartame and other sweeteners and the risk of several common neoplasms.

No, I can't provide you with a link to the article that most of you would be able to access - most peer reviewed academic journals aren't publicly available online, which means if you don't want to take my word for it you will have to find a way to access the Journal of Oncology. Sorry, but that's the price you pay for having a discussion that rises above the level of trading links from sensationalized news stories and bullshit scare-mongering web pages.

"Aspartame and brain cancer" by Roberts, H.J. in LANCET 349 (9048): 362-362 FEB 1 1997 discusses it all pretty thoroughly.

Nasor, could you provide me with a link that shows that backs up the claims you made. I tried to find the text of the H.J. Roberts article but couldn't. I did however find out a little something about the author - apparently Dr. H.J. Roberts is convinced that aspartame is extremely dangerous to the extent that he coined the phrase "aspartame disease" and wrote a 1038 page book titled "Apartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic." (http://www.sunsentpress.com/aspartameDisease.html) So I seriously doubt that the paper you have provided, "Aspartame and Brain Cancer" is the refutation you believe it is and are leading others to believe it is. You seem to be blinded devoted to this synthetic chemical. I suggest you educate yourself. You can begin by reading this page by Dr. H.J. Roberts:
http://www.wnho.net/fdaapprovedepidemic.htm

Okay, sorry…I admit I did make a mistake here. The reference that I gave was the place where the link was proposed. There’s definitely an article that shows it to be wrong, but I don’t know what it is off hand. I have to head home, but I’ll try to post it tomorrow.

In almost an hour of searching google, I have been unable to find even one list of products that contain aspartame. Interesting huh? I challenge anyone interested (who may have more time to look than me) to find a list of products containing aspartame. I did find a list of drugs (prescription and over the counter) that contain Phenylalanine, one of the components of aspartame. Here is the link: http://www.pkunews.org/diet/asptable.htm
Here is the link to the home page: http://www.pkunews.org/diet/aspartame.htm
I'm out of time for today (I only have an hour a day at the local library).

In almost an hour of searching google, I have been unable to find even one list of products that contain aspartame. Interesting huh? I challenge anyone interested (who may have more time to look than me) to find a list of products containing aspartame. I did find a list of drugs (prescription and over the counter) that contain Phenylalanine, one of the components of aspartame. Here is the link: http://www.pkunews.org/diet/asptable.htm
Here is the link to the home page: http://www.pkunews.org/diet/aspartame.htm
I'm out of time for today (I only have an hour a day at the local library).

Here are some links

http://www.aspartame.org/aspartame_products.html

http://www.nutrasweet.com/articles/article.asp?Id=47

http://www.aspartame.ca/page_a2a.html

Aspartame is found in almost any diet drink or sugar free sweets. However actual literature is still inconclusive regarding the danger of aspartame.
in
Ann Oncol. 2007 Jan;18(1):40-4. Epub 2006 Oct 16.
Gallus et al. stated :" The present work indicates a lack of association between saccharin, aspartame and other sweeteners and the risk of several common neoplasms."

Here is an additional link challenging the findings, however it is likely not an unbiased one (the guy is working for an aspartame selling company)
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=17366802

Overall, the evidence is increasing for a possible link between aspartame and cancer, the final verdict is yet to come, though.

Bring Back Cyclamates!!

Aspartame is found in almost any diet drink or sugar free sweets. However actual literature is still inconclusive regarding the danger of aspartame.
in
Ann Oncol. 2007 Jan;18(1):40-4. Epub 2006 Oct 16.
Gallus et al. stated :" The present work indicates a lack of association between saccharin, aspartame and other sweeteners and the risk of several common neoplasms."

Here is an additional link challenging the findings, however it is likely not an unbiased one (the guy is working for an aspartame selling company)
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=17366802

Overall, the evidence is increasing for a possible link between aspartame and cancer, the final verdict is yet to come, though.

I agree with this post. For what it's worth, I think it needs to be pointed out that the first sentence is a little misleading since an ever-growing market share is moving to Splenda. It's gaining ground every day in diet products and so far there's been no indication of it causing any type of health problems that I'm aware of. (And no, I'm not connected to it in any way.) :)

Splenda is a natural substance isn't it?

Splenda is a natural substance isn't it?

Not exactly - it's a chemically modified form of sugar.

There's this supplement called Fructooligosaccharide(FOS) that people use to help gut dysbiosis - and it tastes really sweet. Its totally natural (I think) and used in japan alot as an additive. So this is a sugar substitute that has actual proven benefits.

Here are some links

http://www.aspartame.org/aspartame_products.html

http://www.nutrasweet.com/articles/article.asp?Id=47

http://www.aspartame.ca/page_a2a.html

Thanks S.A.M. I did see a couple of those lists in my previous searches, but I was hoping that someone might know of an all-inclusive list of all 6000+ products that contain aspartame. That would be some list, though.

I guess we just have to look for either "phe" or "PHE" (for phenylalanine, one of the components of aspartame) or aspartame or methyl acid on labels to avoid it. It seems that it's in a lot of children's medicines, flavored medicines, "sugar-free" products in general, diet drinks and even a lot of prescription medicines.

Splenda is a natural substance isn't it?
No. But it's much better then aspartame.

Stevia is natural and Japanese studies show it to be very safe.

Thanks S.A.M. I did see a couple of those lists in my previous searches, but I was hoping that someone might know of an all-inclusive list of all 6000+ products that contain aspartame. That would be some list, though.

I guess we just have to look for either "phe" or "PHE" (for phenylalanine, one of the components of aspartame) or aspartame or methyl acid on labels to avoid it. It seems that it's in a lot of children's medicines, flavored medicines, "sugar-free" products in general, diet drinks and even a lot of prescription medicines.
Imagine what a pain aspartame is for people with PKU....

Corporations don't give a shit about that, though.

Truthseeker, check this shit out. From the wiki page on stevia: "In 1991, at the request of an anonymous complaint, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) labeled stevia as an "unsafe food additive" and restricted its import. The FDA's stated reason was "toxicological information on stevia is inadequate to demonstrate its safety."[25] This ruling was controversial, as stevia proponents pointed out that this designation violated the FDA's own guidelines under which any natural substance used prior to 1958 with no reported adverse effects should be generally recognized as safe (GRAS).

Stevia occurs naturally, requiring no patent to produce it. As a consequence, since the import ban in 1991, marketers and consumers of stevia have shared a belief that the FDA acted in response to industry pressure.[26] Arizona congressman Jon Kyl, for example, called the FDA action against stevia "a restraint of trade to benefit the artificial sweetener industry."[27] Citing privacy issues, the FDA has not revealed the source of the original complaint in its responses to requests filed under the Freedom of Information Act.[26]"

What the fuck? It looks like stevia was kept off the market from the artificial industry. So a safe thing is being kept from us, and an unsafe thing is being soldto us as "harmless." That's great.

Yes, I know that for a fact. Fortunately, that is not the case in Canada- so we buy stevia.

Stevia is very common in Brasil too (my home country). It's found in Guarana. And we even have a pop made from the plant. :)

We are concerned that corporations might succeed in banning it from here too... :(

I also know of a natural supplement that has almost been banned from Canada. It's a sad situation......

So why have they banned "stevia" for health concerns but not aspartame?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevia

Remids me of the republican con-job of the supposedly safe hydric acid they allow all these corporations to use in just about every kind of consumable.

http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html


Scary.

No. But it's much better then aspartame. Stevia is natural and Japanese studies show it to be very safe.I don't care how healthy it is, it tastes like rancid licorice to me. Everything I tried putting it in tasted so bad I had to spit it out. You have to take into account the fact that some of these offbeat chemicals, whether "natural" or synthetic, haven't been established as having a standard flavor to all humans the way time-tested substances like sugar have. I won't miss stevia.Imagine what a pain aspartame is for people with PKU. Corporations don't give a shit about that, though.Everybody has to do their own personal risk management. No two people have the same attitude about risks versus rewards. I will continue using aspartame because it tastes like sugar to me and if there's a miniscule statistical risk it's hardly any more important than the risk I take every time I indulge myself in the guilty pleasure of a bag of fast-food french fries made with transfats. Or drive on the freeway to go to work--something I don't even want to do!

As far as I'm concerned I wish they'd bring back calcium cyclamate. That was the best tasting artificial sweetener ever.

A life with no risk is also a life with no pleasure.