nutrasweet.

[leopold99]

aspartame AKA nutrasweet accounts for over 75 percent of the adverse reactions to food additives reported to the FDA. Many of these reactions are very serious including seizures and death.
http://www.mercola.com/article/aspartame/dangers.htm

my question is why is this stuff even legal?

[thinking]

aspartame AKA nutrasweet accounts for over 75 percent of the adverse reactions to food additives reported to the FDA. Many of these reactions are very serious including seizures and death.
http://www.mercola.com/article/aspartame/dangers.htm

my question is why is this stuff even legal?

why indeed

[cosmictraveler]

why indeed

Because it is much cheaper to make man made additives rather than use the real deal. If "they " can save .002 cents per product, they will do it.:(

[phlogistician]

"Internet rumors and activism
An elaborate hoax disseminated through the internet attributes deleterious medical effects to aspartame"

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

"The artificial sweetener aspartame has been proved responsible for an epidemic of cancer, brain tumors, and multiple sclerosis.

Status: False"

http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/aspartame.asp

Seems you have fallen for the conspiracy theory. Perhaps it's best to check some sources before propagating a falsehood?

[BlueMoose]

I dont know what is the truth, but I never use anything with such chemicals, those arent natural and IMO dont taste good.
And what goes for food industry, its a big business, and big businesses dont give shit about anybodies health, money talks, bullshit walks.

I have been reading this very same issue before, this issue would make interesting debate on formal debate sub-forum.

So are Dr Russel Blaylock lying ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqIFDoOwSFM&feature=related

Seems logical to me use only natural food but each are on their own :shrug:

[EndLightEnd]

"Internet rumors and activism
An elaborate hoax disseminated through the internet attributes deleterious medical effects to aspartame"

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

"The artificial sweetener aspartame has been proved responsible for an epidemic of cancer, brain tumors, and multiple sclerosis.

Status: False"

http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/aspartame.asp


You obviously did not read anything from the second link you posted, because it goes on saying how aspartame while not directly linked to those diseases, is STILL extremely dangerous to ingest.

"In the case of systemic lupus, we are finding it has become almost as rampant as multiple sclerosis, especially among diet coke and diet pepsi drinkers"

"During I lecture I said, 'If you are using ASPARTAME and you suffer from fibromyalgia symptoms, spasms, shooting pains, numbness in your legs....depression, anxiety attacks, slurred speech, blurred vision or memory loss ---- you probably have ASPARTAME disease!"

Futhermore the article goes on to say that aspartame does not cause multiple sclerosis, but rather symptoms that resemble multiple sclerosis which dissapear when aspartame consumption is stopped. THIS is why it says false, not because aspartame is safe.

"When we get people off aspartame, those with systemic lupus usually become asymptomatic. On the other hand those diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, (when in reality the disease is methanol toxicity), most of the symptoms dissapear."


Seems you have fallen for the conspiracy theory. Perhaps it's best to check some sources before propagating a falsehood?

Seems you have fallen for the cover up. Perhaps its best to check the sources YOU post before claiming you know the truth.

[visceral_instinct]

A girl I know accidentally got addicted to aspartame via a gum she chewed a lot.

She gave it up for Lent and suffered a seizure.

[darksidZz]

I lke sweet & low :( is that ok?

[James R]

aspartame AKA nutrasweet accounts for over 75 percent of the adverse reactions to food additives reported to the FDA.

Now, if the propagators of this myth had said 10%, maybe knowing nothing I might have thought it was plausible. But 75% is really stretching it. Don't you think?

[darksidZz]

Am I safe with sweet & low :(

[Repo Man]

Am I safe with sweet & low :(

It has passed all FDA mandated tests, so I wouldn't worry about it. And even if it does have some minuscule health risk associated with it, it cannot be viewed in a vacuum. If you weren't using it, you'd likely be using sugar. Refined sugar is a major cause of obesity, which has some very real health risks. And Sweet and Low (and other artificial sweeteners) are often used by diabetics to help keep their blood sugar levels under control, so for them it is safer to use than sugar.

[S.A.M.]

I generally avoid "diet" anything Sugar is also an additive as is HFCS, but sweeteners are a completely different animal. I know that sucralose is the flavor of the moment. It seems relatively safer since it's a mutated sucrose that cannot be digested, although I wouldn't be surprised if the colonic microflora adapted themselves to it.

[(Q)]

aspartame AKA nutrasweet accounts for over 75 percent of the adverse reactions to food additives reported to the FDA. Many of these reactions are very serious including seizures and death.
http://www.mercola.com/article/aspartame/dangers.htm

my question is why is this stuff even legal?

It's interesting that dietitians and doctors prescribe it to pregnant women instead of sugar. Perhaps they haven't read that article?

Check the disclaimer:

"Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted."

[S.A.M.]

That seems rather reckless. Phenylalanine tends to be concentrated on the fetal side of the placental barrier

[EndLightEnd]

That seems rather reckless. Phenylalanine tends to be concentrated on the fetal side of the placental barrier

What is rather reckless? Giving aspartame to pregnant women?

[S.A.M.]

Recommending it as a sugar substitute. Unless the women are suffering from gestational diabetes there is no need to do so

[(Q)]

That seems rather reckless.

Not at all. The dietitian is simply recommending a substitute for sugar. This does not preclude the fact the dietitian might not recommend either.

[EndLightEnd]

It's interesting that dietitians and doctors prescribe it to pregnant women instead of sugar. Perhaps they haven't read that article?


You said prescribe earlier, not recommend. Thats why SAM said its odd, and struck me as strange also.

[S.A.M.]

Aspartame breaks down into aspartic acid and phenyl alanine. Besides the fact that pregnant women may already have hyperphenylalaninemia due to a reduced ability to metabolise Phe during pregnancy, Phe is also the precursor for DOPA a potent antidepressant.

And Phe is concentrated on the fetal side of the placental blood barrier.

In addition, we know very little about long term effects of any of these additives. There was an Italian study a couple of years ago on an animal model that showed an increased incidence of some types of cancer with long term abuse of aspartame. Considering how many people who go diet take Aspartame from several sources (soda, tea, candy, chewing gum to name a few) it's reckless to recommend it or promote it unless medically required.

[leopold99]

Now, if the propagators of this myth had said 10%, maybe knowing nothing I might have thought it was plausible. But 75% is really stretching it. Don't you think?
hmmmm, now that you mention it . . . it does indeed sound like a stretch.
but is it really a myth that aspartame is dangerous?

after rereading the link i posted i noticed that they go into the "fact" that aspartame has methanol in it which i find very hard to believe.
it might be made from methanol but that in no way says it has methanol in it.
now if one of the breakdown products is methanol then that is a different story and would be a cause for concern.

[Headspin]

aspartame is an excitotoxin. it excites brain cells to death, eventually causing a measurable reduction in brain matter, and brain tumours.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excitotoxicity

http://www.amazon.com/Excitotoxins-Taste-Russell-L-Blaylock/dp/0929173252/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1235256283&sr=8-1

brain tumors have been increasing worldwide in the last 20 years, especially in young people.

aspartame was introduced in the 1980's pushed through the FDA by that well know truth creationist Donald Rumsfeld. I won't touch it.

[S.A.M.]

hmmmm, now that you mention it . . . it does indeed sound like a stretch.
but is it really a myth that aspartame is dangerous?

after rereading the link i posted i noticed that they go into the "fact" that aspartame has methanol in it which i find very hard to believe.
it might be made from methanol but that in no way says it has methanol in it.
now if one of the breakdown products is methanol then that is a different story and would be a cause for concern.

I'm not certain but I think methanol is used to reduce the hydrophobicity of aspartame and render it soluble. About 10% of aspartame in diet soda is methanol. So 2 liters would give you about 100 mgs of methanol at current doses. Unfortunately I don't know enough about methanol toxicity to tell you about safe limits (since it's not a food item) but I assume that's way below toxic levels (amounts are approx and based on memory)

[leopold99]

for what it's worth, i have no idea on how to interpret it though.
http://avogadro.chem.iastate.edu/MSDS/methanol.htm
another source.
http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/M2015.htm

the above links are to material safety data sheets for methonal industrial use.
i have no idea if they can be applied to the arguement or not.

additional sources.
http://epa.gov/chemfact/s_methan.txt
in depth.
http://www.inchem.org/documents/pims/chemical/pim335.htm

[S.A.M.]

Exposure limits are given as 250 ppm(parts per million) or 260 mgs.

Also it seems that a 12 ounce can of aspartame sweetened soda contains 200 mgs of aspartame which would amount to 20 mgs of methanol after digestion.

An additional peculiarity of methanol is that 30% of it is retained in the body and is not broken down to formaldehyde -> formic acid -> water and carbon dioxide. But this is info from alcoholics, where ethanol is preferentially metabolised. Don't know if anyone has looked at it in pregnant women.

[John99]

aspartame AKA nutrasweet accounts for over 75 percent of the adverse reactions to food additives reported to the FDA.

Sugar is a food additive as well. I read many of the web sites that were regurgitated here. It is mostly the same pages copied over and over with same info.

The problem is that people are always looking for answers to things that have been happening from when first humans walked the planet.

Brain tumors, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, chronic fatigue syndrome, parkinson's disease, alzheimer's, mental retardation, lymphoma, birth defects, fibromyalgia, and diabetes.

These things were just not diagnosed.

[Headspin]

the E-33 and E-34 studies on lab rats show a correlation between brain tumors and apartame, increasing the risk by 25 times.

studies also showed brain tumors risk increased cumulatively with dosage.
other study using 59,000 rats showed the risk increased 47 times.

even using Searle's (manufacturer of aspartame) inflated normal incidence of tumor figure, the risk increase was shown to increase by 25 times.

I also recall reading that rats were less susceptible to effects of aspartame than humans, so any effects of studies are likely to be amplified in humans.

[Headspin]

These things were just not diagnosed.

is this based on anything, or just speculation?

[S.A.M.]

59000 rats? At $25 a pop, that's some study

[Repo Man]

You can find anything on the internet.

Dr. Martin classified refined sugar as a poison because it has been depleted of its life forces, vitamins and minerals. "What is left consists of pure, refined carbohydrates. The body cannot utilize this refined starch and carbohydrate unless the depleted proteins, vitamins and minerals are present. Nature supplies these elements in each plant in quantities sufficient to metabolize the carbohydrate in that particular plant. There is no excess for other added carbohydrates. Incomplete carbohydrate metabolism results in the formation of 'toxic metabolite' such as pyruvic acid and abnormal sugars containing five carbon atoms. Pyruvic acid accumulates in the brain and nervous system and the abnormal sugars in the red blood cells. These toxic metabolites interfere with the respiration of the cells. They cannot get sufficient oxygen to survive and function normally. In time, some of the cells die. This interferes with the function of a part of the body and is the beginning of degenerative disease."2

Refined sugar is lethal when ingested by humans because it provides only that which nutritionists describe as "empty" or "naked" calories. It lacks the natural minerals which are present in the sugar beet or cane.

In addition, sugar is worse than nothing because it drains and leaches the body of precious vitamins and minerals through the demand its digestion, detoxification and elimination makes upon one's entire

system. So essential is balance to our bodies that we have many ways to provide against the sudden shock of a heavy intake of sugar. Minerals such as sodium (from salt), potassium and magnesium (from vegetables), and calcium (from the bones) are mobilized and used in chemical transmutation; neutral acids are produced which attempt to return the acid-alkaline balance factor of the blood to a more normal state.
http://www.ghchealth.com/refined-sugar-the-sweetest-poison-of-all.html

Why is this legal?

[John99]

is this based on anything, or just speculation?

just so you know, i am well aware of Aspartame and these studies. tbh, i dont use it.

Speculating about what? That most people a few decades ago, let alone centuries ago, where not autopsied or that these tests were not even available and many diseases were unknown?

NO

[Headspin]

you can find a lot in books and librarys too.

[John99]

yeah but i notice you are a googler supreme.

[Headspin]

59000 rats? At $25 a pop, that's some study

just rechecked my facts (from a book in my personal library - nudge to John99)

Neuroscientist Dr. John Olney used 59,000 ratsm, from 7 different studies, to show a total of 0.08% normal incidence of brain tumors. so these rats were probably from other studies (not asaprtame studies) and the data used as control data to compare with the aspartame studies....showing 47 times increased risk.

[S.A.M.]

A meta analysis? I'm not a fan. But I see your point.

[John99]

neuroscientist dr. John olney used 59,000 ratsm, from 7 different studies, to show a total of 0.08% normal incidence of brain tumors. So these rats were probably from other studies (not asaprtame studies) and the data used as control data to compare with the aspartame studies....showing 47 times increased risk.

bingo!

[EndLightEnd]

You know I could swear I remember seeing a warning on fake sugar packets YEARS ago which said something along the lines of it heightening cancer risk in lab rats. I wish I would have saved the packet. That is the main reason I never touched the stuff.

[S.A.M.]

That's saccharine.

[EndLightEnd]

lol really? How many cancer causing agents are there in fake sugar?

[leopold99]

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

[EndLightEnd]

we got that link from Phlog already, thanks

[candy]

Use stevia instead of aspartame.

[BlueMoose]

-Pretty widespread, this from aspartame.org ( is so good for you :D )

"Aspartame has established itself as an important component in many low-calorie, sugar-free foods and beverages and is primarily responsible for the growth over the last two decades in the sugar-free market. The safety of aspartame has been affirmed by the U.S. FDA 26 times in the past 23 years.

Currently, aspartame is consumed by over 200 million people around the world and is found in more than 6,000 products including carbonated soft drinks, powdered soft drinks, chewing gum, confections, gelatins, dessert mixes, puddings and fillings, frozen desserts, yogurt, tabletop sweeteners, and some pharmaceuticals such as vitamins and sugar-free cough drops. In the United States, all food ingredients, including aspartame, must be listed in the ingredient statement on the food label."
http://www.aspartame.org/aspartame_products.html

-Aspartame vs Stevia; European Union and some very serious concerns...

"EU Calls For New Investigation Of Aspartame And Stevia"

The EU Parliament says that "the use of aspartame increases the exposure to its metabolites methanol/formaldehyde and phenylalanine, and is reported to provoke headaches, nausea, and allergic reactions, especially in the case of vulnerable persons. Its widespread use should therefore be re-evaluated by the Commission and the relevant scientific committees, taking into account all available data and respecting the precautionary principle. A historical evaluation is required, as there seems to be evidence that original studies did not prove the safety of aspartame."

There is also a call for proposals to improve the labeling of products containing aspartame. The EU Parliament wants the new directive to be implemented in the Member States within a year of its entry into force. They are concerned about a lack of warning labels for pregnant women and children's health.

Rightly so, since aspartame is an abortifacient and a teratogen. It also stimulates prolactin. It is an endocrine-disrupting chemical. It changes the menses, triggering infertility. Then if the female consumer is off aspartame and gets pregnant, she may lose the baby if she gets back on it.

As James Bowen, M.D. says in "Aspartame Murders Infants" (www.dorway.com), "At every point in the fertility process aspartame destroys, beginning with the gleam in Mom and Pop's eyes: it ruins female sexual response and induces male sexual dysfunction. Beyond this, aspartame disrupts fetal development by aborting it or inducing defects. And if a live child is born, aspartame may have heinously damaged the DNA of the baby, cursing future generations."

The manufacturer and the FDA have steadfastly refused to put a warning on aspartame, even though they have full knowledge of how it can destroy the fetus or trigger birth defects. Louis Elsas, M.D., Pediatric Professor of Genetics at Emory University, testified before Congress on this issue. This is online along with a position paper by H. J. Roberts, M.D., admitting that even a man consuming aspartame at conception can cause birth defects in his own child.

Why does the FDA refuse to extend this warning? The law requires that an additive be inert or non-reactive. Admitting that aspartame can destroy the fetus or inflict horrendous birth defects shows that aspartame is not an additive, but a deadly neurotoxic drug. It interacts with just about every drug used to treat the problems it causes, and probably if investigated would show that no drug is safe on the market today, because when you add a chemical poison, it interacts.

The allergies mentioned by Parliament are probably related to the fact that aspartame is a chemical hypersensitization agent, so those who have used this deadly toxin have interactions with vaccines, toxins, genetically modified foods, as well as other unsafe so-called additives like sucralose (Splenda), which has a chlorinated base like DDT and can cause autoimmune disease, as well as acesulfame potassium, which triggered cancer and leukemia in original studies. Parliament has also called for a review of the use of sucralose and aspartame-acesulfame salts within three years.

Russell Blaylock, M.D., author of Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills, says that the reactions to aspartame are not allergic but toxic, like arsenic and cyanide. In his new book Health and Nutrition Secrets To Save Your Life, he says all it takes is one diet drink to cause significant DNA damage. The book also includes a chapter on bioterrorism that everyone needs to read. Dr. Blaylock is a neurosurgeon and specialist in bioterrorism.

The famed John Olney, M.D., who founded the field of neuroscience called excitotoxicity and did the studies on aspartic acid (40% of aspartame), testified to the Board of Inquiry of the FDA and explained what would happen to the brains of our children if aspartame was approved. The Board agreed, saying not to approve aspartame. This report and the entire Board of Inquiry report stating aspartame is not safe can be read on www.greatfallspro.com, Mission Possible Maine.
...................................
I asked them why they outlawed Stevia, and was told there were no studies showing safety. Stevia is an herb which has been used in Brazil for thousands of years, especially to aid diabetics, because it helps in the metabolism of sugar. I told them we have about 500 studies showing safety, and where did they want them sent. No answer. They didn't want them to be available. While this is just hearsay, when Stevia, which is the salvation of the diabetics, was outlawed in Europe, I received a call from England. The caller said he worked with Monsanto, and they were responsible.
http://www.naturodoc.com/library/News/EU-aspartame.htm

-And that was just piece of it, there is more in the link...

-Perhaps as safe as adding lead to gasoline :shrug:

[phlogistician]

You obviously did not read anything from the second link you posted, because it goes on saying how aspartame while not directly linked to those diseases, is STILL extremely dangerous to ingest.

"In the case of systemic lupus, we are finding it has become almost as rampant as multiple sclerosis, especially among diet coke and diet pepsi drinkers".

Dude, you really are a total idiot. The text you quoted is the MYTH email and web site posting people have been propagating! Snopes are saying that the 'information' in the sample, and the material you just quoted ARE FALSE.

YOU didn't read it correctly! DUH!

[BlueMoose]

-Seems to me that every time I come across company called Monsanto its bad news...

-So Phlogistician, would you allow your children use aspartame products ? Will you use those from now on ?

-To me it seems that dangers of aspartame is more than just a myth. ? .

[phlogistician]

-Seems to me that every time I come across company called Monsato its bad news...

-So Phlogistician, would you allow your children use aspartame products ? Will you use those from now on ?

-To me it seems that dangers of aspartame is more than just a myth. ? .

I don't have any children. But in moderation, I really doubt there is a health issue.

And it would help if ignorami like EndLightEnd could tell the difference between fact and fiction, and not re-post Myths from a myth debunking site as fact!

[John99]

[link removed for review]

is it as safe as sugar?

[BlueMoose]

I don't have any children. But in moderation, I really doubt there is a health issue.


-Just out of curiosity, and because I think this issue is very important...

-So you will use those in good faith ? If you had children, would you let them use aspartame products ? Do you think that the article I provided is just BS ?

-I really think that there could be health issue with aspartame, and if there is, it wouldnt be any big surprise since its not natural.

-One of my friend has been warning me years about aspartame, I was off aspartame already and artificial sweeteners in general because I didnt like the taste so I didnt pay much attention, but more I look to it more it looks like no good thing, I´m definitely out of it, now days I always look what the products are made of.

-I wont promote aspartame anybody, actually been telling all my friends that there can be something shady about it and recommended to look it out themselves, mostly I been called nut but I dont care, its such a big deal since many of my friends have a little kids and I feel obligated to warn about it, lot to lose but nothing to gain using it IMO.

[John99]

BM, i hate the way they taste.

[BlueMoose]

[link removed for review]

is it as safe as sugar?

-Thats the other thing my friend has been telling me years, not to use white sugar and white salt, but natural raw sugar is pretty hard to find.

"Muscovado is pure, unrefined, non-centrifugal cane sugar. It is also called 'poor peoples sugar. Muscovado retains all of the natural ingredients of sugar cane making it an unrefined sweetener. Although commonly used in Latin America and Southeast Asia, these products are relatively difficult to find in the US.

Many people compare muscovado to brown sugar, and while there are similarities in its flavor and use, they are two totally different products. Natural sugar, such as Muscovado, still contains the original components of the raw sugar cane plant while brown sugar is made from refined white sugar with a small amount of molasses added to it."
http://www.wildernessfamilynaturals.com/muscovado_sugar.htm


How white sugar is made

"White" sugar is created in a couple of ways.

Mill white sugar is the result of sulphur dioxide being introduced to the cane juice before evaporation. It effectively bleaches the mixture.

In the production of refined white sugar, which is the most common product in the Western world, the raw sugar syrup is mixed with a heavy syrup and run through a centrifuge again to take away the outer coating of the raw sugar crystals.

Phosphoric acid and calcium hydroxide are then added to the juice which then combine and absorb or trap impurities. Alternatively, carbon dioxide is used to achieve the same effect.

The resulting syrup is then filtered through a bed of activated carbon to remove molasses and then crystallized a number of times under vacuum. It is then further dried to produce white refined sugar like we buy in the store
................
It never ceases to amaze me the number of food processing sequences that take something out of a food, only to add it back in later on, such is the case with brown sugar. Another example of this is breadmaking flour that has most of vitamins destroyed in the milling/bleaching process only to have vitamins needed to be added back in.
http://www.greenlivingtips.com/articles/73/1/White-sugar-vs-raw-sugar.html

"When it comes to choosing sugar, there is no doubt that unrefined raw sugar is the best choice. It contains minerals and nutrients that are stripped from refined white sugar and regular brown sugar. Raw sugar contains roughly eleven calories per teaspoon and has the same vitamin and mineral consistency that is found in the juice from the sugarcane plant. These minerals include Phosphorus, Calcium, Iron, Magnesium, and Potassium. In addition, when sugar is refined and processed there are many harmful ingredients that are added to the sugar as a result. Unrefined raw sugar does not have these harmful chemicals. Some of these include: Phosphoric Acid, Sulfur Dioxide, and Formic Acid.

With the increase of Diabetes and obesity in the country, it is imperative that people take a look at the type of sweeteners that they are using. It is important to make sure that you are not using excessive amounts of sugar, specifically refined white sugar in your diet. There are many natural sweeteners that will not detract from your health, but are an enhancement an offer nutritional benefits as well. In addition to unrefined raw sugar, honey is also a wonderful sweetener that offers nutritional benefits as well."
http://www.naturalorganiclifestyle.com/unrefined-raw-sugar.html

[BlueMoose]

BM, i hate the way they taste.

-Luckily me too, it seems. I tried those time to time back then, and I never get used to that taste, something that could be described "overly-sweet" or something. :cool:

[John99]

i dont care for the taste but i still think it is, most likely, safe for consumption. often times people look for a suitable candidate for diseases that occur naturally but not saying definitively if that is the case here or not.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1998/aspartame-0916.html

[phlogistician]

-Thats the other thing my friend has been telling me years, not to use white sugar and white salt, but natural raw sugar is pretty hard to find.

Where do you live? I used unrefined sugar in my coffee. It's easy to find here, I have several options.

On aspartame, I don't buy many pre-prepared products, as I prepare nearly all my meals from fresh ingredients, so it's not an issue for me.

I think considering the scale of the hoax, we have to be very careful about our sources, and a publication titled "Aspartame Murders Infants" hardly seems balanced.

[BlueMoose]

Where do you live? I used unrefined sugar in my coffee. It's easy to find here, I have several options.

On aspartame, I don't buy many pre-prepared products, as I prepare nearly all my meals from fresh ingredients, so it's not an issue for me.

I think considering the scale of the hoax, we have to be very careful about our sources, and a publication titled "Aspartame Murders Infants" hardly seems balanced.

-I live in Finland in a small town currently. But what is certain is that those whom doesnt know about these things dont even have an option, there is hardly ever else than white sugar in normal shops.

-Scale of a hoax, even EU is on it, thats big hoax, sure.
Balanced, well, thats not the only site on this issue, there are plenty, and if it does what title says, then whats wrong with the title ? I dont judge the content by its title.

What is there to gain to be in such hoax for the following people?
-Dr. Blaylock is a neurosurgeon and specialist in bioterrorism", or
-"The famed John Olney, M.D., who founded the field of neuroscience called excitotoxicity and did the studies on aspartic acid (40% of aspartame), testified to the Board of Inquiry of the FDA and explained what would happen to the brains of our children if aspartame was approved. The Board agreed, saying not to approve aspartame"

-Doesnt sound logical to me. Let me guess, selling books ? But the big business has something invested in this issue for sure.

-To me the hoax is getting people to use unnatural toxins :shrug:

[phlogistician]

-To me the hoax is getting people to use unnatural toxins :shrug:

Well, here I agree, but it's a risk/benefit thing. I use real sugar, unrefined usually, because I'm not fat, and get exercise, and eat freshly prepared food, not frozen crap that is microwaved.

Fat, lazy people try to cut down their calorific intake by using sweeteners. They are at risk from the preservatives and colours in their food too, and their sedentary lives. Aspartame is just another risk for them.

If they got off the couch, and went to the grocers, they'd solve many of their problems.

[leopold99]

-Thats the other thing my friend has been telling me years, not to use white sugar and white salt, but natural raw sugar is pretty hard to find.

honey, as in honeybee honey.
essentially honeybee vomit, sounds appetizing doesn't it?
i got to admit though that it DOES taste pretty good on buttered toast.

[thinking]

honey, as in honeybee honey.
essentially honeybee vomit, sounds appetizing doesn't it?
i got to admit though that it DOES taste pretty good on buttered toast.

regardless how it comes about , honey is better for you than white sugar

and by the way sea-salt is better for you than table salt

[RobDegraves]

I have read this silliness about aspartame for years. It is internet bunk.

BTW Blue Moose, I do have a child and yes he does drink and eat things with aspartame in them, as do I. Neither of us are fat, nor are we couch potatoes. I teach martial arts and my kid is a green belt currently. We do try to eat healthy but we tend to like our caffeine... which is likely the worst thing we take in. None of us smoke nor drink. I like to try and be as healthy as possible. If I thought there was any truth in the aspartame danger, I would not touch it.

There have been a ton of studies done on aspartame. Keep in mind that aspartame is used in thousands of products, by millions of people. Any serious side effects would have been darn easy to spot by now.

[thinking]

I have read this silliness about aspartame for years. It is internet bunk.

BTW Blue Moose, I do have a child and yes he does drink and eat things with aspartame in them, as do I. Neither of us are fat, nor are we couch potatoes. I teach martial arts and my kid is a green belt currently. We do try to eat healthy but we tend to like our caffeine... which is likely the worst thing we take in. None of us smoke nor drink. I like to try and be as healthy as possible. If I thought there was any truth in the aspartame danger, I would not touch it.

There have been a ton of studies done on aspartame. Keep in mind that aspartame is used in thousands of products, by millions of people. Any serious side effects would have been darn easy to spot by now.

the problem is , is that aspartame , is absorbed by the the body and builds up over time

the body CANNOT FLUSH IT OUT

its not a " now thing "

its an " over-time thing "

[RobDegraves]

So... how much time then?

It was discovered in 1965.

It became widely used in the 80's.

To this date there is no evidence of widespread problems associated with it.

Estimates vary but it is used by approximately 250 million people worldwide.

Almost 30 years and hundreds of millions who have used it. How long does it take?

Do you have any actual and verified studies that show any harm? I bet you think you do, but you don't.

[thinking]

So... how much time then?

It was discovered in 1965.

It became widely used in the 80's.

To this date there is no evidence of widespread problems associated with it.

Estimates vary but it is used by approximately 250 million people worldwide.

Almost 30 years and hundreds of millions who have used it. How long does it take?

Do you have any actual and verified studies that show any harm? I bet you think you do, but you don't.

google it , you'll see

[S.A.M.]

So... how much time then?

It was discovered in 1965.

It became widely used in the 80's.

To this date there is no evidence of widespread problems associated with it.

Estimates vary but it is used by approximately 250 million people worldwide.

Almost 30 years and hundreds of millions who have used it. How long does it take?

Do you have any actual and verified studies that show any harm? I bet you think you do, but you don't.

With food, it typically takes a couple of generations for effects to show up. People don't realise that the effects of food intake are cumulative, the adaptability of the body means you need to abuse it for a long time before its sufficiently damaged enough for effects to become grossly evident.

Oftentimes, even if there is an effect staring you in the face you may not realise it because its not something you are expecting based on what you think you know about the substance. Also people who do these studies often ignore the effect of confounding variables present in real life.

Sometimes, you only discover it through a fluke

People who took dietary supplements of the nutrient beta-carotene while enrolled in a large cancer prevention trial continued to have increased rates of lung cancer six years after the trial was stopped early and the supplements discontinued, long-term follow-up of trial participants has shown.

The results add to earlier evidence from this study and a second large prevention trial that, contrary to earlier expectations, not only do beta-carotene supplements not prevent lung cancer in people at high risk for the disease, they appear to increase rates of the disease, particularly among smokers.
http://www.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/results/final-CARET1204

[RobDegraves]

thinking...

I did google it. There are no reputable studies showing that aspartame has any negative side effects that I could find. Internet rumors are not a reputable study.



S.A.M.

With food, it typically takes a couple of generations for effects to show up. People don't realise that the effects of food intake are cumulative, the adaptability of the body means you need to abuse it for a long time before its sufficiently damaged enough for effects to become grossly evident.

Granted, it is possible that there is something about aspartame that will take 100 years to discover. However, since there is no evidence of this, there is no reason to believe that it is so.

You could say the same thing about any food. Maybe it takes 2000 years for the effects to show up and we are just about to find out that cheese is lethal.

On a personal note, I find the whole aspartame conflict quite ironic in a world where people smoke, drink and use drugs. When you have thousands of people every week who die from smoke related diseases, everyone freaks out about a product that has had no detectable side effects for nearly 30 years. It's ironic to say the least.

[phlogistician]

thinking...

I did google it. There are no reputable studies showing that aspartame has any negative side effects that I could find. Internet rumors are not a reputable study.



Indeed, see this thread as an example of just how gullible people are. I linked to a Snopes article debunking this Myth, but it was mis-read by one moron as proof of the 'problem'!

[EndLightEnd]

What I find interesting about this issue is all of the conflicting information one can find, here are two quotes from the bottom of the following links page in a section titled, the facts about aspartame.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/risk/aspartame

Aspartame, distributed under several trade names (e.g., NutraSweet® and Equal®), was approved in 1981 by the FDA after numerous tests showed that it did not cause cancer or other adverse effects in laboratory animals (Council on Scientific Affairs 1985; Flamm 1997; Koestner 1997).

Ok but...

An animal study that fed 0, 4, 20, 100, 500, 2500, and 5000 mg per kilogram of body weight of aspartame to rats saw lymphoma/leukemia increase in female rats, starting from about twice the risk with 20 mg per kilogram of body weight (a person weighing 75 kilograms or 165 lbs, consuming 1500 mg aspartame, or about 8 cans of diet soda) compared with a control group that was not fed aspartame.

Now correct me if I am wrong, but leukemia is a cancer of the blood, no? It appears even the government isnt sure about this one. Its probably best to stay away from it, but since your so convinced phlog why dont you start drinking 8 diet sodas a day for a couple of years and get back to us.

Heres another link since you guys seem to be having trouble finding sources...http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/34040.php

A statistically significant increase in the incidence of malignant tumors, lymphomas and leukemias in rats exposed to varying doses of aspartame appears to link the artificial sweetener to a high carcinogenicity rate, according to a study accepted for publication today by the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP).


Ah what the hell one more...http://www.cspinet.org/new/200706251.html
A new long-term animal test from an Italian cancer institute raises serious safety questions about the artificial sweetener aspartame, which is marketed generically as well as under the NutraSweet and Equal brand names. A dozen toxicology and epidemiology experts and the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest are calling on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to immediately review the study, which found increases in lymphomas, leukemias, and breast cancers in rats. If FDA concludes that aspartame does cause cancer in animals, the agency is required by law to revoke its approval for the controversial sweetener, which is used in Diet Pepsi, Diet Coke, tabletop packets, and countless other foods.

[RobDegraves]

EndLightEnd...

You really need to read further when you look at research.

In 2006, a study of the long-term effects of eating aspartame in rats by the European Ramazzini Foundation Institute was published.[17] The study of 1,800 rats found that aspartame administered at varying levels in feed led to slight, dose-independent, but statistically significant increase of lymphomas-leukemias and malignant tumors of the kidneys in female rats and malignant tumors of peripheral nerves in male rats, and malignant brain tumors in male and female rats. The authors concluded that aspartame is "a multipotential carcinogenic agent, even at a daily dose of 20 mg/kg body weight, much less than the current acceptable daily intake".[17]

As a result, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)[43][71] the US FDA[72] discounted the study results and found no reason to revise their previously established acceptable daily intake levels for aspartame.[71]

The New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA) questioned the significance of the Ramazzini studies:{{cquote|These studies were conducted in a way that could not possibly have provided any information about the toxicity of aspartame – or in fact anything else in the rats’ diet. ... If aspartame was as horrendously toxic as is being claimed, it would be logical to expect the rats dosed with it to have shortened life-spans. The conclusions drawn by the researchers were clearly not backed up by their own data.[73] Other scientists stated that the Ramazzini researchers ought to have improved upon the methodologic and conceptual weaknesses that had been present in their earlier paper.[71]




Its probably best to stay away from it, but since your so convinced phlog why dont you start drinking 8 diet sodas a day for a couple of years and get back to us.

I do that already... so do millions of people. In fact, over 250 million people for nearly 30 years.

[EndLightEnd]

Then why are the results of that experiment still on the cancer.gov website? The first link I posted above.

Its at the veeeeery bottom so its easy to miss.

Besides all you are arguing is who should we trust more? The New Zealand Food Safety Authority(who as far as I can tell did NOT do experiments of their own), or the European Food Safety Authority which refused to reverse the results! Can you tell me which is more valid?

[Bree]

I also have the same question. Good thing I've stumbled upon this post. Will surely follow this one.