nutrasweet.

[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.