Study Finds Aspartame Causes Cancer

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!!!!!
 
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:
 
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????
 
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.
 
Last edited:

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.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top