Aspartame linked to cancer: study

[IChing]

Source: Sydney Morning Hearald

The US Food and Drug Administration says there is no need for an urgent review of the safety of aspartame, despite a new study showing the sweetener may cause cancer.

A US consumer group has called for the review after Italian researchers published a new study that showed aspartame - widely used in soft drinks - might cause leukaemia, lymphoma and breast cancer in rats.

"This is the second study by the same lab showing that aspartame causes cancer in rats," Centre for Science in the Public Interest executive director Michael Jacobson said.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Aspartame-linked-to-cancer-study/2007/06/26/1182623862983.html

---

DONALD RUMSFELD AND ASPARTAME

In 1981, the newly appointed FDA Commissioner, Arthur Hull Hayes, ignored the negative ruling and approved aspartame for dry goods. As recorded in the Congressional Record of 1985, then CEO of Searle Laboratories Donald Rumsfeld said that he would "call in his markers" to get aspartame approved. Rumsfeld was on President Reagan's transition team and a day after taking office appointed Hayes. No FDA Commissioner in the previous sixteen years had allowed aspartame on the market.>>>snip

"When Donald Rumsfeld was CEO of Searle, that conglomerate manufactured aspartame. For 16 years the FDA refused to approve it, not only because its not safe but because they wanted the company indicted for fraud. Both U.S. Prosecutors hired on with the defense team and the statute of limitations expired. They were Sam Skinner and William Conlon. Skinner went on to become Secretary of Transportation squelching the cries of the pilots who were now having seizures on this seizure triggering drug, aspartame, and then Chief of Staff under President Bush's father. Some of these people reach high places. Even Supreme Justice Clarence Thomas is a former Monsanto attorney. (Monsanto bought Searle in 1985, and sold it a few years ago). When Ashcroft became Attorney General, Thompson from King and Spalding Attorneys (another former Monsanto attorney) became deputy under Ashcroft. (Attorneys for NutraSweet and Coke).

http://www.newswithviews.com/NWVexclusive/exclusive15.htm

[soothsayer]

1. shocker! wish they'd bring back cyclamates---those were the BEST!

[Morgana LaFey]

stevia is the best

IMO.

An herb from Paraguay. Fabulous stuff.

[helderheid]

57. Agreed

[kestrel91316]

84. I tried stevia. It has a HORRIBLE bitter undertaste.

Perhaps we need to look at those who are talking it up a little closer -are they SELLING IT?? If so, they simply cannot be trusted.

This is the standard applied to veterinarians - we make money selling our medical services, therefore we always lie.

What's fair is fair.

[femrap]

96. Did you use the liquid Stevia?

Some of the stevias have lots of alcohol in them....which distorts the sweet flavor of the stevia. I use it everyday in my coffee (Wild Oats brand of stevia) and I love it.

Interesting story about the process of turning the stevia berry into a sweetner for humans...a Brazilian man heard that Monsanto (I believe) was going to buy the process and put in on the shelf so no one could have it....so he bought it so we can enjoy it today.

Hope you'll try it again...

[MsRedacted]

105. I am suspicious of Stevia because it made me sick as a dog.

Admittedly, it was when I was recovering from gallstone pancreatitis

But I was well past the NPO stage and had been eating a bland, basic diet for at least 6 weeks. Most of my trouble had gone away.

And Stevia just made it all go to hell. Granted I was in a pretty digestively sensitive place, but it made me wonder what the hell it really was -- and since it's not at all monitored (like most nutraceuticals) I now avoid it.

[KittyWampus]

114. try stevia that has inulin in it. Or Erythritol, an alchohol sugar that look like white sugar

but actually inhibits baceterial growth rather than promote it.

Also safe for diabetics, it's broken down in the gut.

[tbyg52]

141. Or xylitol

which is actually *good* for your teeth. (It's the main ingredient in the non-drying type of mouthwashes.)

Unfortunately, it's hard to get any that isn't made in China.....

[lynnertic]

149. also xylitol is deadly poison to dogs

the aspca says 3 sticks of trident can fell a rottweiler. however that's spelled.

[lynnertic]

150. the plant itself has a 'green' aftertaste. it's best in cold drinks

I grew it for a couple of years and in fact sweetening tea is the ONLY use I found for it. BUT: it makes for good conversation at parties.

[gentlegiant]

26. "Everything You Want to Know About Nutrition...

But Don't Know Enough to Ask" is a book I read in 1983 by Dr. David Ruben. I don't eat anything with BHA or BHT (if I can help it) and do not buy or eat products with chemical sweeteners in them. In recent years, I've tried to dodge high fructose corn syrup, but it is in almost everything that is the least bit processed. Odds are if it doesn't occur naturally in food, you shouldn't be eating it. Cancer isn't the only thing that can kill you.

Gotta go. Time for another high fructose popsicle. (hey, it's 95 degrees here today.)

[MorningGlow]

51. Welcome to DU, GG!

:toast:

And howdy neighbor (Caledonia here)--stay cool today!

BTW, totally agree with you--chemical sweeteners are the debbil. :puke:

[ChazII]

118. 95 is cool

Try living where is is 95 at 5am and triple digits by 9. You're right about that corn syrup -- trying to find a product that doesn't contain it is almost imposible. Welcome to DU.

[Sequoia]

36. I remember them in Fresca from the 1960s.

Are you being funny or serious about cyclamates. I heard they were pulled off the market because of being cancer causing. Then, I heard much later on, that cyclamates were gotten rid of to make room for this stuff.

[JDPriestly]

41. Saccharin was carcinogenic to mice because of the structure of

their kidneys. It probably is not carcinogenic to humans. You have to know the mechanism through which a substance causes the cancer before panicking. Animal studies do not necessarily identify human carcinogens. It depends.

Sorry. I believe it was saccharin, not cyclamates that were carcinogenic to mice because of the structure and functioning of the kidney.

[OKIsItJustMe]

175. Read the actual study

http://www.ehponline.org/members/2007/10271/10271.pdf

[ThomCat]

2. It's aparently okay to poison people as long as there's a profit in it.

x(

[Threedifferentones]

47. Well

"The CSPI said the Acceptable Daily Intake of aspartame in the United States was 50 mg per kilogram of body weight, equivalent to a 20 kg child drinking 2.5 cans of diet soft drink a day, or a 68 kilogram adult drinking about 7.5 cans a day.

The Italian researchers found a cancer risk at the very highest doses - double the US Acceptable Daily Intake."

[StarryNite]

3. I'm sure aspartame is perfectly safe

:sarcasm:

[OldschoolDem]

22. Cigarettes, Alcohol, Driving a car, etc

Nothing is perfectly safe. If you are concerned about it don't drink diet soda. Simple fix.

[olddad56]

171. good idea, stop all of that stuff, and stop breathing the air.

[tridim]

4. Aspartame and HFCS are both poisons..

And our only choice in soft drinks and most other sweetened drinks.

BRING BACK SUGAR DAMMIT!

Seriously. I'll pay and extra dime.

[Bridget Burke]

5. Soft Drinks are a rare treat for me--they ain't exactly health food.

But Mexican Coca Cola (with 100% pure cane sugar) is cheap here in Texas.

[tridim]

7. You Texans have Dr. Pepper with real sugar too. I'm jealous. nt

[orleans]

35. they also have jack in the box restaurants. (at least they used to)

we had them here in the 70's

god i miss the SUPER TACO! it was the ABSOLUTE BEST.

oh, those were the days!

[iamahaingttta]

44. You can have REAL Dr. Pepper too!

Just order it over the internet, like we do!

http://dublindrpepper.com/

With the shipping charges to New York City, it costs us $1.68 per 8oz bottle, which is a bit expensive. However, considering we NEVER drink soda with NutraSweet® or High Fructose Corn Syrup, it's not that bad. Besides, when our friends from Texas all come over for a BBQ, and we whip out the Ro-Tel cheese dip and Dublin Dr. Pepper... well... let's just say we know how it feels to be loved!

I'll never forget the first time I tasted soda with aspartame AKA NutraSweet, in the 1980's. I said out loud, and I'll never forget it... "My god, that shit tastes like liquid death!" Maybe I was right afterall!

And finally, please remember and don't ever forget - "The NutraSweet Company" is owned by Monsanto...

[gulfcoastliberal]

129. Thanks for the Dublin Dr. Pepper link

I appreciate it.

[Kokonoe]

76. Wow check this out at Costco. Real Mexican Coke.

http://www.seriouseats.com/required_eating/2007/05/costco-is-selling-mexican-coke.html

[tridim]

78. Sweet! (No pun) I didn't know that Costco sold it. Thanks. nt

Edit: Damn, I thought you were talking about Dr. Pepper. Oh well.

[maggiegault]

112. We bought a case of it here in AZ at our Costco...it's incredible (n/t)

[Skittles]

67. it makes it a Pepsi

yuck

[stevietheman]

19. Nonsense.

HFCS is certainly proven more unhealthful than consuming straight sugar. And the evidence against aspartame isn't very strong at this point.

Neither have been proven to be "poisons".

[truedelphi]

23. Problem being - the evidence against aspartame

That you refer to is probably the industry evidence - as opposed to the
expert evidence that has been ignored.

Reagan administration stacked the FDA with industy people to get the approval of this stuff.

At least one national expert on children's brain and neurology development spoke up at the hearings on Aspartame to the effect that the government should have warning labels on the products containing it - that it simply is not safe for children under the age of six.

I also know personally of one case of a man developping "multiple sclerosis" - when his doctor realized that he consumed six diet soft drinks a day - he refused to fill the requet for a wheel chair. He ordered the man to give up his diet drinks - and within six months the "MS" patient was well again.

[stevietheman]

27. One anecdotal tale proves nothing. n/t

n/t

[truedelphi]

30. Funny thing - thirty or forty of Edward Jenner's anecdotal tales about

Cowpox proved the vaccine theory.

But industry likes vaccines.

Even when people assemble four thousand stories against something (witness the recent class action lawsuit against the vaccine industry) - it is considered anecdotal.

Used to be that if you noticed something it was considered observation.

Now it only counts if it is industry making the observation.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

167. They're suing over the Hg in the vaccines, not the vaccines themselves.

[Morgana LaFey]

32. Right, but there are a bucket-load of such anecdotes out there

Here's MY Aspartame file:

Rumsfeld and Asparatame
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2257875
How Aspartame Became Legal
http://www.rense.com/general33/legal.htm
Aspartame, anti-depressants and Bush
(Highly political but has very good info otherwise)
By Jerry Mazza, Online Journal Contributing Writer
http://onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/080604Mazza/080604mazza.html

------------------------------------------------
THE BITTER TRUTH ABOUT ARTIFICIAL SWEETENERS (good article - ingredients and how they work)
http://curezone.com/foods/aspartame.asp

THE BITTER TRUTH ABOUT ARTIFICIAL SWEETENERS (article plus several links incl re sugar)
http://curezone.com/foods/sugarpage.asp

Holistic Med
http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame /

Aspartame Danger (with a twist)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=222x11356#11360
Link: http://www.newstarget.com/020550.html

MP calls for ban on 'unsafe' sweetener (aspartame)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1990955
Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/food/Story/0,2763,1667734,00.html

NUTRAPOISON - HOW TO CONDUCT CHEMICAL WARFARE THROUGH FOOD (PART ONE)
By Alex Constantine
http://www.wnho.net/nutrapoison.htm

Aspartame? No!
(a bit about Stevia, and some aspartame links)
http://www.dorway.com/stevia.html

Dr. Death (aka Donald RUMSFELD) named in ASPARTAME LAWSUIT
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3850150&mesg_id=3850150&page=
Link: http://www.newswithviews.com/BreakingNews/breaking25.htm
and: http://www.mercola.com/2005/jan/12/rumsfeld_aspartame.htm
(more links in OP)

===========================================
Aspartame Victims Support Group
http://presidiotex.com/aspartame/

MERCOLA (has numerous articles)
Aspartame: What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You
http://mercola.com/article/aspartame/hidden_dangers.htm

Janet Starr Hull's website
http://www.sweetpoison.com/

Aspartame Toxicity Info Center
http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/

World Natural Health Organization LINKS (includes some links re Splenda's dangers) http://www.wnho.net/aspartamenews.htm

Aspartame... the BAD news!
http://www.dorway.com/badnews.html

Artificial sweetners put the die in diet!
http://www.peak.sfu.ca/the-peak/98-3/issue2/sweet.html

Health Issues Links: http://jassekhmet.tripod.com/healthm.htm

10 mg Methanol From Aspatame Can Cause Blindness
http://www.rense.com/general38/10mg.htm

Documents relating to symptoms (LINKS!)
http://www.dorway.com/symptoms.html
Home page of massive aspartame info collection: http://www.dorway.com/

LETTER TO THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS WITH REGARD TO ASPARTAME
By Dr. Betty Martini
http://www.wnho.net/aapletter.htm

WHAT TO DO IF YOU HAVE USED ASPARTAME
By Neurosurgeon Russell Blaylock, M.D
http://www.wnho.net/wtdaspartame.htm

Former FDA Investigator Exposes Aspartame As Deadly Neurotoxin
That Never Should Have Been Approved
(This is from a source that I believe DU doesn't allow here anymore. I had my whole post deleted once upon a time by the mods because it contained a "forbidden" source, and I believe this was it. If anyone wants this link, PM me.)

--------------
Additional links in this DU DISCUSSION: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=66563#66735
indigobusiness (1000+ posts) Sat Aug-07-04 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #9
But, while Stevia can taste quite bad if used incorrectly, it is virtually indistinguishable from sugar if used correctly. It just cannot be used exactly the same way as sugar.

Research excitotoxins and see where aspartic acid takes you.

Are you going to tell me monosodium glutamate is harmless as well?

The Nutrasweet Lobby is powerful, indeed...but shame on Snopes for not digging a little deeper.
http://www.dorway.com/blaymsg.txt


Peer Reviewed Studies:
SURVEY OF ASPARTAME STUDIES:
CORRELATION OF OUTCOME
AND FUNDING SOURCES
http://www.dorway.com/peerrev.html

RAO Report (pivotal study)
http://www.dorway.com/raoreport.pdf

CDC Report
http://www.dorway.com/cdctext.txt
After reading this "full" report you can decide for yourself if the summary was adequate, correct, or a whitewash. Keep in mind that some of the studies that approved aspartame were the target of an indictment for fraud never carried out because two U.S. prosecutors went to work for the law firm defending the case, which let slip the hounds of disease and death on an unwarned public. On 60-Minutes (Dec. 29, 1996) Dr. Ralph Walton admitted that 83 of 90 INDEPENDENT studies on aspartame showed problems. The 60-Minute spokesman chided the aspartame representitives that 70 of 70 Searle funded tests seemed to show aspartame to be OK (however, it seems that Searle submitted around 112 documents and two of those studies were submitted to the Department of Justice for an indictment for fraud). Of Searle's many reports the FDA selected fifteen they termed as "pivotal" to their decision to approve aspartame as safe.

However, Dr. Moser (the Nutrasweet spokesman) admitted to JenniferCohen (http:/www.dorway.com/jcohen.html ) that:

"..the study should never have been undertaken, much less submitted as legitimate observation. This particular (RAO) experiment represents an unpardonable breach in methodology."

If this motivates the reader to action... http://www.dorway.com/congress.html is a good starting point for locating someone in authority to complain to. The President DHHS FDA and your congressional representatives.


The Bressler Report (FDA on Searle)
http://www.dorway.com/bressler.txt

Nexus Article
http://www.dorway.com/nexus.txt

NSDA Protest
http://www.dorway.com/nsda.txt

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The Artificially Sweetened Times
http://www.vaclib.org/news/astimes.htm

[rosesaylavee]

61. Great little file you got there!

:thumbsup:

Just one of the many reasons I love DU... Great sources, ML.

[TreasonousBastard]

117. The first link I clicked on referred to Mark Gold, who...

is on the hit list of pretty much every diabetic researcher I know of for being a fanatic. Sorry, but every time I see Gold in the picture I have to just walk on by.

I don't for a minute doubt Aspartame is not particularly good for you, nor do I doubt it's been shoved down our throats like so many other things, but aside from a few people who have reactions to it, there's still no proof it's a killer.

And, yes, I agree that "no proof it's a killer" is not a reason for it to be foisted on us, but at this point there's no chance it will be pulled from the market so it's up to us to try to avoid it.

I use powdered Stevia I get from Trader Joe's, Splenda, or the saccharine tablets I get at Walgreen's in the thousand pill bottles. Or, what the hell, sometimes I just use sugar. And I will grab a Diet Pepsi Double Gulp when it gets really hot (fill the thing over half with ice, though).

I just saw that Puritan's Pride has a good deal on Stevia powder, and now that I don't live close to a TJ's any more, might give them a shot.

[Morgana LaFey]

144. Nice way to poison the well

I didn't post all those links as anything but a gob of links I've collected. They're not special to me, and many of them I haven't even read. But it's downright silly to take a look at ONE link and throw the whole thing out.

But whatever.

:shrug:

[TreasonousBastard]

145. Sorry about that, but...

although I hope there's something of value in all that stuff, it's still a lot of not necessarily useful info if it's just a bag 0' links without some critical sorting of the who's and what's. I did glance at a few others, and Mark Gold's handiwork was elsewhere, too, although not at every site. Perhaps 'tis a well already a bit tingly.

Real people with diabetes and other illnesses have died after falling for Noni Juice and other quackeries. The Aspartame wars were a part of all that and while, as I said, I don't like the stuff and wish it would go away, there's a need for real science and real data to see where the problems are.

[samsingh]

158. i do not let children drink anything with Asparthame in it

[tridim]

37. Well I'll add an "IMO" if that makes you happy

The effect on my body with both HFCS and Aspertame is that of a poison.

I consider Alcohol a poison, do you?

Poi-son –noun
1. a substance with an inherent property that tends to destroy life or impair health.

[lynnertic]

151. proven, schmoven

when people start talking like you are I wonder if there is any way anything could possibly be 'proven' to their satisfaction.

[JDPriestly]

43. Diabetes caused by sugar and aggravated by obesity is a far

more common and therefore more likely problem. Use everything in moderation:

Their study of more than 4,000 rats showed a lifetime of eating high doses of the sweetener raised the likelihood of several types of cancer.
. . . .
The Italian researchers found a cancer risk at the very highest doses - double the US Acceptable Daily Intake.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Aspartame-linked-to-cancer-study/2007/06/26/1182623862983.html

To a great extent toxicology is a question of dose. More Americans are poisoning themselves with sugar and tobacco than with aspartame, rest assured.

Eight drinks containing aspartame in one day is quite a few too many. One drink a day or a couple of times a week probably would not hurt you. That's my guess.

[Morgana LaFey]

72. I don't know that it's an either/or situation

Diabetes is a huge problem, of course, but there is an indication that aspartame can raise the insulin in such a way that it contributes to the insulin resistance (called Metabolic Syndrome X these days) that leads to or is associated with diabetes and a host of other problems.

The REAL problem, IMO, is that sugar and other sweeteners are in EVERYTHING and that processed wheat and other grains (white flour) turn into sugar in the body rather quickly so have the same effect on the body -- and thus our insulin is being abnormally raised all damn day, every damn day, every week and month and year.

UNTIL the overweight turns into Metabolic Syndrome X -- and then diabetes and/or obesity, and/or high blood pressure and/or heart disease and/or high and bad cholesterol and/or Alzheimer's and/or stroke...

The best is to not each much processed food but to concentrate instead on fresh fruit and vegetables (or frozen if necessary, with NOTHING added), plus whole grains, and only sparingly, plus legumes, plus animal protein (for those who go that direction, and I do). IOW, a diet like nature intended; a diet that doesn't have much of a shelf-life because all the life-supporting stuff hasn't been ripped out of it; a diet that other living things (including microbes) are interested in precisely because it DOES have life-supporting things in it.

[JDPriestly]

119. I agree with you on the diet tips.

Fruits, vegetables should be the focus. I am a meat eater too but again everything in moderation (except veggies and fruits -- I feast on those very happily and steadily -- hasn't hurt me yet).

[KittyWampus]

115. Diabetics can use Erythritol or Xyitol or Stevia

[northzax]

157. technically, if is a carcinogen...

then any dose could potentially be fatal to someone. toxicology is slightly different when you are dealing with carcinogenic chemicals, where there is no 'safe dose' legally.

I am suspicious of this reasearch for a couple of reasons. First off, this is the only lab that has found this link, I don't particularly like research that no one else seems to be able to duplicate. Sofritti et al are the only people who have found this result, in a multitude of published studies on Aspartame. Second off, all decent epidemiological studies suggest there is no linkage in humans.

check out: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=aspartame+cancer&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search the only positive results for cancer are Sofritti's, or reference his work. Now, if I am the maker of say, Splenda, I am funding a serious study on Aspartame, trying to get it spiked. the fact that this hasn't happened yet, that there is no corroborating evidence, makes me dubious of the result.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

173. Nonsense.

There are safe concentrations for carcinogens just like any other toxic compounds.

[northzax]

174. No, there are no 'safe' concentrations

There may be acceptable levels for society, there may be acceptable risk levels (usually a cancer risk of 1 in a million) take a toxin, we will call X. Dose response testing shows that at 10 mg/kg, humans have no adverse response. You can give ten million identical people that dose, and they will all show no adverse response.if you halve the dose, people are still fine, right? What if the limit is actually 20? Give ten million identical people 20 mg/kg, and they will all have reactions.

Now take a carcinogen, Y. At 10 mg/kg, there is an elevated cancer risk of one in a million. Give it to ten million people, ten of then will develop cancers. Halve the doseand maybe the risk cuts in half, or more. You will still have a cancer. If it is truely a carsinogen, then one molecule, given to a large enough subject base, will cause a cancer. There is no "safe" dose, given a large enough subject pool, there will be a cancer. We may decide thata one in ten million, or one in a million risk level is acceptable, but you will still get cancers, it's not safe, just acceptable given other tradeoffs we might make. But go ahead, tell that one person that it is safe.

[JerseygirlCT]

74. That would be good, wouldn't it? nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

79. Aspartame's never killed anybody.

Tooth decay, however, has killed thousands.

BTW, HFCS is sugar.

[tridim]

81. HFCS is dextrose, cane/beet sugar is sucrose. Similar, but not the same thing. nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

83. HFCS is fructose and dextrose.

Sucrose, when ingested, breaks down into fructose and dextrose.

All of the above are sugars.

[tridim]

89. So can I eat fruit since it contains fructose? :eyes:

My point is not that sucrose is good for you, just that it tastes better and is therefore worth the extra few cents.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

90. My point is that fructose is a sugar.

:shrug:

And is not poisonous.

[susanna]

147. No, but a study out really recently...

...and I'll have to find it, shows researchers being kind of amazed that fructose is more damaging to our insulin sensitivity than pure, straight glucose (table sugar is actually a glucose/fructose mix). It just appeared within the last few days. I'll look for it and bookmark this thread so I can post my findings. Just don't be surprised if it's closer to the weekend. I'm swamped at work. :-(

[Morgana LaFey]

143. Well, you don't actually KNOW that, do you?

And you can't prove a negative, so you can't prove your obtuse (and IMO ignorant) claim. The REAL "science" the company did on this has been suppressed.

I never understand why you come onto these threads and whether it's GMOs or Aspartame or some other atrocity being foisted on a duped public, you're on the slick, sick, lying corporate side of things.

Why?

And don't give no song and dance about "science." You're far too bright, far too educated to fall for that "it doesn't exist/isn't real unless science has blessed it with its imprimatur" myopia. There's PLENTY that's true out there that science hasn't gotten around to studying, or the studies have been suppressed, or various other reasons.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

152. Don't give you that song and dance about science?

What's that supposed to mean?

Aspartame's been on the market for what, twenty five years from now? Millions of people have been consuming it. There have been hundreds of studies over and over again testing it for it's safety, and they all show it's fine. And I'm supposed to believe it's dangerous why? To satisfy loony anti-corporate conspiracy theories? Because I'd be sheeple otherwise?

Shit, Morgana, why don't I just believe that Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster are in cahoots to poison me with chemtrails? Sure there isn't any reason to believe it, but that just proves there's conspiracy doesn't it? Why are you siding with Bigfoot, Morgana?

It's precisely because I am bright and educated, mostly educated, that I'm not falling for this bullshit.

[Morgana LaFey]

165. HUNDREDS of aspartame studies?

How many with the real results suppressed?

HUNDREDS of aspartame studies? ALL of them (hundreds, plural) showing it perfectly safe. Sure, I believe that. Have there been any 25-year long studies? What's the longest duration study, and what does it show?

But you didn't answer my question. Why are you always on the side of the corporations, against common sense?

[Boo Boo]

160. The Italian experiments show that, in rats, Aspartame breaks down to

form (amongst other things) Formaldehyde, which is a known carcinogen. Other byproducts are Methanol and Formic Acid, the latter is a mutagen. The result of the Italian experiments are cancers in rats.

On edit: Methanol is not a mutagen.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

164. Didn't read it, did you?

The Italian study doesn't show that at all. Now it is true that aspartame is metabolized to produce among other things- formaldehyde. That's already well known. All methyl esters, and methyl ethers for that matter, are metabolized to formaldehyde. It's a natural process which occurs in the human body ever single day. That's why it's of no consequence with the case of aspartame.

[Morgana LaFey]

166. prove it

that the human body produces formaldehyde from OTHER than aspartame every single day.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

172. Didn't I already mention S-adenosyl-L-methionine?

This is really basic biochemistry Morgana.

If you want to look up more, try Phase I metabolism. Specifically p54 enzymes.

[Boo Boo]

162. Hmm... HFCS is sugar, and yet "sugar free." Interesting /nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

163. You're confusing diet soda and regular soda.

And artificial sweeteners with HFCS.

[Boo Boo]

170. Yup. I brain-farted and read/typed HFCS, but was referring to Aspartame. /nt

[fortyfeetunder]

108. Can you find Jones Soda?

made with sugar. Dayum it's good...

[dysfunctional press]

6. i NEVER touch the stuff.

i just wish i could get soft drinks with sugar, instead of hfcs.

[notadmblnd]

8. Trader Joe's sell it

[Tyler Durden]

9. hfcs will disappear...

Ethanol from corn...remember? Mark my words.

[BadgerKid]

56. Splenda will replace HFCS, imo (n/t).

[mackdaddy]

65. Splenda causes me extreme muscle weakness...

Splenda and the generic form sucralose causes me to have such extreme muscle weakness that I can hardly climb stairs.

I thought I was getting some degenerative disease like MS, or MD and started out doing a web search on leg weakness, and found several sites talking about this and other reactions from Splenda. I had recently switched to Splenda in the big bag for my iced tea from saccharine. I have never had any allergies to anything before this.

Eliminated all the Splenda/sucralose from my diet, and the leg weakness went away in about two weeks. I have had a couple of re-occurrences over the past couple of years, but every time I had accident ly had something with Splenda/sucralose. Diet 7-up switched to splenda, and once a friend had some cranberry juice, and I did not realize she had one bottle of regular,and a second open bottle of "low cal" juice with splenda. Also found it in some but not all of my "Ice" brand chewing gum.

It has been such a strong cause and effect, I have zero doubts this stuff really gets me. I have started reading labels on everything, but it is amazing the products they put it into.

My parents and siblings still use the stuff, so I have to be careful at family dinners too. I tried to convince them it was bad, but they have not seen the symptoms, and my mother is addicted to Diet-Rite.

I know there are lots of people who use it with no apparent ill effects, but then only 5% of the population will die from peanuts.

"Tastes like sugar because its made from sugar" -- with a few chlorine atoms glommed on to it.

[AngryOldDem]

121. I have the exact opposite reaction to Splenda

It gets me wired as hell. For me, that is high octane. I can tell by one sip what drink has it and what does not. I tend of avoid it.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

168. The line "made from real sugar" is misleading as hell.

Splenda does indeed have Chlorine atoms in it and it's bad stuff.

When I was a kid they had liquid saccharine (only artificial sweetener available then) and my parents and grandparents told me it was "just like sugar" in my tea. Well, it wasn't and I argued day and night about it. I craved sugar because I have a problem with low blood sugar, but the docs didn't know about that in the sixties, I guess.

Since then I have found out there is a gene for this, and some people can tell the difference, and some people can't tell the diff between sugar and artificial sweeteners.

It's pretty bad when your family tells you your perceptions are WRONG. God, what a mindfuck.

[Hissyspit]

10. Hmm, rat poison causes cancer in rats. What a surprise. n/t

[firefox_fan]

11. Yup, "Same lab" is the problem... Independent replication is needed.

This comes out periodically and it's mostly a distraction from real issues, IMO.

[gravity]

85. Exactly

I am skeptical of this lab coming up with the same conclusion twice, when every other similar study in the world contridicts them.

[firefox_fan]

97. Thanks Gravity. At least somebody with a scientific background...

These days nobody THINKS anymore...

[onehandle]

12. Duh. nt

[supernova]

13. Glad I switched to seltzer and

flavorings like fresh lemon and lime, instead. All the fizz, none of the guilt.

[BonnieJW]

15. Unfortunately,

the fizz is bad for you too. It leaches the calcium from your bones. I had to give up everything with bubbles.

[supernova]

17. Oh, I only drink it

maybe a handful of times during the month, more like 1x/week.

edit: I don't understand people who say they drink multiple soft drinks in a day, every day. I'd need a kidney transplant if I did that. :silly:

[Big Blue Marble]

52. The fizz is carbon dioxide.

How does it affect the bones?

i did a quick search on the net.
It looks like carbonated water is OK.

http://www.drdonnica.com/faqs/00005211.htm

[supernova]

62. Yes, it' s the caffeine

that leeches a little calcium out of your bones.

I take calcium supplements anyway, so I don't have to worry about it.

[kestrel91316]

87. The phosphoric acid doesn't help either.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

92. Sure it does.

It adds a bite.

[jmowreader]

122. It's not the fizz, it's the phosphoric acid

Shit throws your calcium/phosphorous balance out of whack.

It also makes soda good for un-seizing seized engines. No shit.

[Shakespeare]

14. A lot of the R&D on aspartame/nutrasweet was done at Monsanto's old Pensacola, FL plant.

Most of the former Monsanto employees I know from there refuse to eat or drink anything with nutrasweet in it.

[Socal31]

16. SHOCKED I TELL YA!

Not really. Next one will be in 15 years when this headline comes out: "Cell phones linked to increased rate of brain tumors!"


NO SHIT!

[stevietheman]

18. Saccharine used to cause cancer too

I personally think this is a bunch of hooey. Yeah, if you feed a huge amount of anything to a rat, they'll get cancer. Luckily, humans are much more complex, and the actual amounts of aspartame consumed by those who consume products that contain it are very small.

[Odin2005]

21. Woo woos don't let those pesky facts bother them.

[stevietheman]

28. Back at ya. There is no roundly agreed proof for your position. n/t

n/t

[maggiegault]

34. I am proof of that position.

Aspartame causes actual withdrawal symptoms when you decide to rid your life of it. I don't mean to reference my own blog again to be self-serving, but I find your attitude troubling enough to deem it necessary.

http://lauralinger.blogspot.com/2007/06/junkies-sick-monkeys-strong-thats-whats.html

[progressive_realist]

110. While I am not a fan of aspartame...

Those sound like the symptoms of caffeine withdrawal. Whenever I deliberately or accidentally omit my daily dosage of caffeine in some form, I get terrible headaches, nausea, aches, and all the rest. And yes, from what I have observed it is easily as intense as the withdrawal effects from nicotine or heroin. Although it doesn't last nearly as long. Quitting caffeine only takes two days of crippling, excruciating pain and then you're fine.

I would quit caffeine permanently, but I've found through trial and error that consuming it really does improve my mental acuity at work. I've reconciled myself with just trying to keep my consumption moderate.

[maggiegault]

125. I didn't quit caffeine. I never said that I did. Only Nutrasweet. (n/t)

[progressive_realist]

146. But your blog says you quit drinking Diet Coke

Diet Coke has, in fact, more caffeine than regular Coca-Cola. If you were regularly drinking huge cups of Diet Coke as you suggest, and you quit cold-turkey without upping your caffeine intake from other sources, you would likely experience all the painful effects of caffeine withdrawal. Unless you are also a big coffee drinker on top of the Diet Coke, in which case you are consuming far too much caffeine.

I only say this because caffeine is so pervasive in our society that people often completely overlook its effects. It is a serious poison. Probably half the ingredients in diet sodas are toxic to some extent, but caffeine is the heavyweight.

http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic3115.htm

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

[snappyturtle]

45. There are warning labels. Why do you think that is? nt

[TZ]

46. Sugar needs warning labels for diabetics too..

Your argument is senseless. A few people have rare genetic disorder that means they have problems with phenyalamines in the aspartame. They need to avoid it. You could theoretically put warning labels on peanuts too, for peanut allergies (which foods which may contain peanuts do indeed do):eyes:

[snappyturtle]

59. It degrades into methanol and formaldehyde....nobody needs that.

You can have my share if you insist. (There are warning labels on tobacco.....allergy related?)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

75. degrades into methanol and formaldehyde, eh?

So does S-adenosyl-L-methionine. And everybody needs that.

[snappyturtle]

94. Degrades may be a poor term to use.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1143
methanol (formaldehyde, formic acid) disposition: Bouchard M et al, full
plain text, 2001: substantial sources are degradation of fruit pectins,
liquors, aspartame, smoke: Murray 2005.04.02 rmforall

Aspartame (NutraSweet, Equal, Canderel, E951), after eight years of
controversy, was suddenly and capriciously approved by a new FDA
commissioner, Arthur Hull Hayes, Jr, just appointed by President Reagan, a
pharmacologist who had been in office less than three months and had little
background in food additives, in July 1981, overturning the vote of his own
Scientific Board of Inquiry.

Aspartame is made of phenylalanine (50% by weight) and aspartic acid (39%),
both ordinary amino acids, bound loosely together by methanol (wood alcohol,
11%). The readily released methanol from aspartame is within hours turned
by the liver into formaldehyde and then formic acid, both potent, cumulative
toxins.

A team in a Searle Co. lab, led by J.A. Oppermann proved that 30% of the
methanol in aspartame fed to rats remained, indubitably as toxic products of
formaldehyde and formic acid in all tissues (1973, 1976).

---------------------------
It's a risk to health in some people.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

135. It's OK.

The methyl group is oxidized by p450 enzymes to methanol and formaldehyde and then excreated by the body. It's certainly not potent or cumulative, since this is a natural process which occurs constantly in the body due to normal metabolism.

Obviously phenylketonurics is an issue, but this "formaldehyde" argument is a red herring.

[Odin2005]

101. The rats were fed mega-does of the stuff.

Comparing that to people who drink a couple cans of Diet Coke a day is junk science.

[kestrel91316]

88. My rat patients come in rather often with tumors, both benign and

malignant. Rats are VERY prone to cancer in the first place, even when they consume NO sweeteners......

[mconvente]

20. I was aware of the link, but I thought it was for excessive amounts of aspartame

The research I've heard of does link aspartame to cancer in rat test subjects, but only when aspartame is used as 20-25% of the rat's total caloric intake. So basically, one would have to consume 20-25% of their daily diet of aspartame to be affected. However, if a LOT of aspartame can cause cancer, then I'm sure there are possibilities in the body where less amounts can cause cancer.



Also, looking at the molecular structure, the organic chemist in me does not like the charged portions toward the left of the molecule (The O- and the +H3N- groups). I don't like the fact that there is an Ester anion there (structure down off of the dotted-line segment with the two "O"). I've done several basic labs in my organic chemistry lab class that can get rid of Ester anion groups fairly easily, and when that happens, you have a completely different molecule with completely different (and perhaps, carcinogenic) properties.

Another thing I don't like about Aspartame is that it's a combination of two amino acids - aspartic acid and phenylalanine. For those who may not know, amino acids are the building blocks of proteins, which really carry out pretty much all the life functions. Well, screw up this molecule like I say above, then insert incorrect amino acids into a protein structure, and boom, we have a non-functioning protein. And a lot of times non-functioning (or alternate functioning) proteins equals cancer.

So basically, either use real sugar (sucrose) or try sucralose (Splenda) which hasn't shown any links (yet at least).

Ok, I'm gonna crawl back in my scientist hole! lol

[IChing]

24. thanks for the ester anion explanation

I forgot that part of my chemistry knowledge.



In reality, aspartame is a drug, not an additive in the sense many
people associate with that word. It interacts with other drugs,
has a synergistic and additive effect with MSG, and is a chemical
hyper-sensitization agent.

Dr. John Olney, who founded the field of neuoscience called excitotoxicity,
attempted to stop the approval of aspartame with Attorney James Turner
back in 1996. The FDA's own toxicologist, Dr. Adrian Gross told Congress
that without a shadow of a doubt, aspartame can cause brain tumors
and brain cancer and violated the Delaney Amendment
which forbids putting anything in food that is known to cause Cancer.

Detailed information on this can be found in the Bressler Report (FDA report on Searle).



Further dangers highlighted is that aspartame liberates free methyl alcohol.
The resulting chronic methanol poisoning affects the dopamine system of
the brain causing addiction. Methanol, or wood alcohol, constitutes one
third of the aspartame molecule and is classified as a severe metabolic poison and narcotic.

[mconvente]

31. Not to mention it causes blindness

That's why making your own alcohol (moonshine) can be very dangerous. If you don't have proper distilling equipment, you'll have some methanol in there along with ethanol (normal drinking alcohol), and you'll become very sick and eventually go blind. So obviously, the problems with aspartame are tenable.

Again, I've only heard of studies where an exorbitant amount of aspartame consumption causes cancer, but it just seems too big a risk for a few calories saved.

[kristopher]

33. Perhaps you'd like to share your method of evaluating the relative risks?

Perhaps you'd like to share your method of evaluating the relative risks?

If it is similar to your analysis using the distillation process for alcohol, I'd suggest you return to your blackboard.

(This is a response to maggiegault's message.)

[OzarkDem]

48. Abstract & Link to Study

This was the second study conducted by this group on Aspartame. This time there were 3 arms to the study. Rats were fed Aspartame at 2,000, 400 or 0 ppm from the 4th day of fetal life til natural death.

Note: I haven't read it all yet, just throwing it up for anyone else who wants to.

Study Abstract
Background. In a previous study conducted at the Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center of the European Ramazzini Foundation (CMCRC/ERF), we demonstrated for the first time that aspartame (APM), administered with feed at various doses to 8 week-old Sprague Dawley rats for the lifespan, is a multipotent carcinogenic agent. Objective. The aim of this second study is to better quantify the carcinogenic risk of APM, beginning treatment during fetal life. Methods. The study was conducted on groups of 70-95 male and female Sprague Dawley rats, administered APM with feed at concentrations of 2000, 400, or 0 ppm from the 12th day of fetal life until natural death. Results. The results of the study show: a) a significant dose-related increase of malignant tumor-bearing animals in males (p<0.01), in particular in the group treated at 2000 ppm (p<0.01); b) a significant increase of the incidence in lymphomas/leukemias in males treated at 2000 ppm (p<0.05) and a significant dose-related increase of the incidence of lymphomas/leukemias in females (p<0.01), in particular in the group treated at 2000 ppm (p<0.01); c) a significant dose-related increase of the incidence of mammary cancer in females (p<0.05), in particular in the group treated at 2000 ppm (p<0.05). Conclusions. The results of this carcinogenicity bioassay not only confirm, but also reinforce the first experimental demonstration of APM’s multipotential carcinogenicity at a dose level close to the acceptable daily intake (ADI) for humans. Furthermore, the study demonstrates that when lifespan exposure to APM begins during fetal life, its carcinogenic effects are increased.

Link to first Ramazzini APM study (Environ Health Perspect 114:379-385, 2006): First Experimental Demonstration of the Multipotential Carcinogenic Effects of Aspartame Administered in the Feed to Sprague-Dawley Rats

Link to full text (Open Access)

http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2007/10271/abstract.html/

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

54. Jesus Christ.

First, it's not an "ester ion" it's a carboxylate. Conjugate base of a carboylic acid.

Secondly, I don't see what the organic chemist in you sees as a problem with the anion near a cation, because like you said, that's aspartic acid.

Thirdly, I'd like to know why this is different than any other esterified C-terminus of a dipeptide, and what on earth makes you think it would cause cancer.

[mconvente]

69. Sorry for the mix up, but take a better tone for Christ's sake

Sorry, I fucked up. Yeah, it's a carboxylate anion, not an ester. I just got them confused. And I'm not doctor or anything (yet at least), but I successfully passed two semesters of organic chemistry and orgo lab with A's, so I'm not dumb with the subject matter.

Unlike aspartic acid, aspartame has an positively charged amine group along with the carboxylate anion. Separation of charges makes molecules less stable, and thus more likely to react and turn into different compounds under the correct conditions. Charges that are stabilized by hyperconjugation are more stable than those that are not (the latter is the case in aspartame).

There are no anions present on any amino acids if I'm correct (other than during a condensation reaction) so with the presence of the charges the molecule is less stable and could potentially add in to a protein being manufactured.

So I'm no expert by any means (graduate school, etc.) but I really would like it if you took a better tone since I know a good amount of organic chemistry.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

71. Oh for fuck's sake.

"Unlike aspartic acid, aspartame has an positively charged amine group along with the carboxylate anion."

Aspartic acid has a positively charged amine group. All amino acids have a positively charged amino group at physiological pH.

"Separation of charges makes molecules less stable, and thus more likely to react and turn into different compounds under the correct conditions."

Well now you're just making things up.

"There are no anions present on any amino acids if I'm correct (other than during a condensation reaction) so with the presence of the charges the molecule is less stable and could potentially add in to a protein being manufactured."

You're incorrect. All amino acids have anions at physiological pH. In addition to all of the N-terminus amines being protonated, all of the C-terminus carboxylates are deprotonated.

"So I'm no expert by any means (graduate school, etc.) but I really would like it if you took a better tone since I know a good amount of organic chemistry."

Your organic chemistry isn't nearly as good as you think it is.

[Miss Chybil]

82. Are there really calories in aspartame?

It seems odd something with zero calories could be measured as 20% to 25% of total caloric intake. What am I missing?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

86. That's a damn good question.

LOL

[Miss Chybil]

106. And I barely passed chemisty...

I'm not very good at math, either, but I'm anxious to hear the answer to my question. ;-)

[kutastha]

91. A couple thoughts...

The ester portion is to the right side where there's the C-O-C=O bond. The one you're referring to is a carboxylic acid (the chemist in me).

Although unlikely, I suppose an anomalous protein could get made if one has a defect in the specific tRNA acyl synthetase, and also the ribosomal RNA, for either Phe or Asp and had enough broken down aspartame in their system to get synthesized into a protein chain (the biochemist in me).

Loss-of- or gain-of-function proteins that lead to cancer would be from mutations in DNA. Even if a transient protein was made with a defective amino acid, it would likely be degraded before it accumulated enough to cause cellular malfunction (the molecular geneticist in me).

Aspartame from my patient's diets would not be my first recommendation of things to avoid putting in their mouths (the physician in me).

And I continue to have some about every day as I have for over 20 years (the DM1 in me).

[kristopher]

25. Just like climate change deniers.

This is the same type of rhetoric that climate change deniers use. I don't accept it from them, nor from you. Here is the last part of the article where it describes the higher risk dosage as equal to 15 cans of soda for an adult. I feel confident if you evaluate the relative risk from obesity that is avoided by substituting aspartame for sugar, you are way ahead with the aspartame:


"However, the conclusions from this second European Ramazzini Foundation are not consistent with those from the large number of studies on aspartame that have been evaluated by FDA, including five previously conducted negative chronic carcinogenicity studies," Herndon said in an email.

"Therefore, at this time, FDA finds no reason to alter its previous conclusion that aspartame is safe as a general purpose sweetener in food."

Jacobson said researchers in previous studies all killed rats at the age of two years.

Allowing the rats to live longer may have been a better way to assess the natural risk of cancer, he said.

The CSPI said the Acceptable Daily Intake of aspartame in the United States was 50 mg per kilogram of body weight, equivalent to a 20 kg child drinking 2.5 cans of diet soft drink a day, or a 68 kilogram adult drinking about 7.5 cans a day.

The Italian researchers found a cancer risk at the very highest doses - double the US Acceptable Daily Intake.

Merisant, which makes Equal, said in a statement on its website: "The safety of aspartame has been confirmed by regulatory authorities in more than 100 countries, including the US Food and Drug Administration, Health Canada, and the European Commission's Scientific Committee on Food, as well as by experts with the United Nations' Food and Agricultural Organisation and World Health Organisation."

[maggiegault]

29. There is a long list of illnesses that are directly linked to aspartame.

I don't mean to be self-referential, but I just wrote about this in my blog. I am kicking Nutrasweet to improve my bipolar disorder and panic disorder. Research has shown that aspartame not only exacerbates psychiatric symptoms, it in fact can cause them.

I am what one might consider to be a Nutrasweet addict. And I am absolutely going through withdrawal from going cold turkey.

http://lauralinger.blogspot.com/2007/06/junkies-sick-monkeys-strong-thats-whats.html

[mainer]

38. what the heck is wrong with sugar and real butter?

It tastes better anyway than the fake stuff.

[Enthusiast]

40. I wasn't much of a soft drink drinker until

I wasn't much of a soft drink drinker until my wife bought Coke C-2. C-2 supposedly had one half the amount of sugar of regular Coke. I liked it! I find regular soft drinks WAY too sweet. Now, we can no longer get C-2. I wonder what happened.

[whistle]

39. That was Donald Rumsfeld's billion dollar baby he rammed

...through FDA without any checks for safety isn't it?

[lovuian]

77. Aspartame man

thats what he is called

[TZ]

42. The Italian researchers found a cancer risk at the very highest doses - double the US Acceptable Dai

This is the same thing that happened with saccharine..they gave rats HUGE doses. As with everything, moderation is the key here.

[OzarkDem]

49. New study varies doses

still showed significant risk.

[TZ]

55. Find me that data please

because it does not say that in the article. It states that THIS study only found it in the highest doses.

[OzarkDem]

60. Post above - Abstract & Link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2894366&mesg_id=2894592

You're welcome :-)

[TZ]

130. My critiques of this study

A) We are still talking about the higher dosages of aspartame, in the study.
B) Feed issues. Are they getting it in the same way humans do, diluted in soda's or the same kind of food? Certainly most people aren't eating rat feed with Aspartame in it.
C) Rats as models. Rats are handy in testing for certain things and make decent disease models, but there still is not a 100% correlation between rat carcinogens and human carcinogenicity. I would like to see some Non-human Primate models with this, it might tell more. There are many other studies that contradict this study as well. I would like to see some more other testing done that replicates this results before I take it as a "reality". Contradictory studies happen a lot. But ususally the study that has been replicated more often is the accepted model- and here the accepted model is that there is no evidence for this yet.
Here is a study in MICE conducted by NIEHS. Its a shorter duration, because mice have a shorter life span. And they admit its POSSIBLE that it needs to be longer. But we are talking about a much smaller body weight getting the same dosages so I suspect length of time would be negated by that fact:
http://ntp-apps.niehs.nih.gov/ntp_tox/index.cfm?fuseaction=abstracts.abstract&chemical_name=Transgenic%20Model%20Evaluation%20Ii%20%28Aspartame%29&cas_no=22839-47-0&study_no=C99033B&test_type=Short-Term&study_length=39%20Weeks&abstract_url=03E4FDB1-CCE9-970E-0455D3DC53465EA7&next=shorttermbioassaydata.datasearch
Finally the researchers do admit there is also no evidence of mutagenicity (genetic tox testing) in these rodent studies, which if it is a"true" carcinogen should have had some indication of IMHO.
I think that drinking eating too much of anything isn't healthy, but I think the idea that aspartame is totally unsafe based on ONE scientific study is a bit absurd as well.

[northzax]

159. as a point of fact

there have been other studies. including long term epidemiological studies (which, when done well, are really the best way to find carcinogens in humans) and they have all shown that the cancer risk is, at greatest, minimal. Sofritti is the only researcher to have found any link, and his methodology isn't all that great (among other things, the rats were given natural lifespans, not terminated at 104 weeks like US studies) so yes, maybe eating ten percent of your body weight in aspartame every day for your entire life will cause cancer, but then, according to this study, at least, THEY LIVED LONGER. After 88 weeks, the control group was solidly in the middle of the mortality curve, and the few rats that lived past 120 weeks (equivalent of 85 years in humans) were medium to high doses. at 130 weeks, you would expect to find cancer, and at 159 weeks?

you can read it here: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1392232

[Turbineguy]

50. Republican voters don't use it? eom

[sal paradise]

53. One example of FDA problems

This is just the latest of many instances where the FDA approves of some chemical or drug that is later revealed to be dangerous or flawed. It doesn't seem like this is as great of a threat as there have been in the past, but it demonstrates the need to tighten standards for approval.

[BadgerKid]

58. I'm not convinced from this article

This article is missing a few points

1. There are certain aspects of rat metabolism that are different from human metabolism. Is aspartame one of those?

2. How does the rat dosage compare to the human Acceptable Daily Intake?

3. How much aspartame *should* I feed my rats, then? :evilgrin:

[Arugula Latte]

63. No one could have predicted this crap would turn out to be poison...

:eyes:

[SmokingJacket]

64. In any event, I think it's better to eat actual FOOD and WATER

than any mix of unnaturally occurring chemicals, cancer studies or not. Why does everything have to be sweetened, anyway? It doesn't. A glass of water or tea or iced coffee is SOOOO much more thirst-quenching than a diet coke with its chemical tang or a tooth-achingly sweet soda any day.

[Frogger]

66. Is there anything

that doesn't cause cancer?

and how does it taste?

[Skittles]

68. thank you

these warnings are fast becoming the boy crying wolf

[Frogger]

107. You're welcome.

I don't smoke, but I eat saturated fats, beef, pork, bacon, etc.

I eat those vegetables that I enjoy: tomatoes, potatoes, greens, and onions. Off the list: broccoli, squash, asparagus, and beans, unless they're cooked southern style, i.e., long cooking times and plenty of grease.

I don't enjoy sweets as much as I used to, but premium ice cream, egg pie, pecan pie, German's chocolate cake, carrot cake, and pralines still can tempt me.

I'll die when I die, but I'll do the things I like and eat the things I like until I do.

[Skittles]

124. I eat all the crap in the world

and I am much healthier than my food-conscious co-workers - probably because I exercise daily and they do not

[marlakay]

70. This doesn't surprise me

after the other one that was out at the time caused cancer I said to husband how long will it be before they find out this one does to?

No one cares if we die or not in this country...look at all the drugs that get approved then...oops...sorry they will kill you...

[JerseygirlCT]

73. And we should believe ANYTHING the Bush FDA says?

I've known the stuff is toxic for a long time. My body cannot tolerate it. I won't let my children near it, either.

[gravity]

80. There has been hundreds of test showing aspartame to be safe

If you do enough studies, there is at least going to be one that has a false positive due to statical chance.

Unless there is independent testing that confirms the results there is nothing to be worried about. The FDA, along with regulatory agencies across the world, are relying on the hundreds of previous test to support their position.

[OzarkDem]

93. According to the scientists

who conducted the latest study, previous ones didn't follow the mice for very long, usually no more than 2 yrs. I believe one reason they did this study was to expose the mice for their full natural life cycle to see which ones developed cancer.

They also designed the study with three arms, each with vary doses of aspartame and one as a control.

[firefox_fan]

98. 3 arms??? Were they mutant?

LOL

[TZ]

148. Rats NOT mice used in this study...

Thats a big difference. Rats are tumor prone. They fed the rats the human equivalent of drinking 15 SODAS per day. Hmmm its almost like they were TRYING to promote tumor growth

[OzarkDem]

169. Got a link for that data?

Just wondering. :)

[TZ]

177. Mouse study

http://ntp-apps.niehs.nih.gov/ntp_tox/index.cfm?fuseaction=abstracts.abstract&chemical_name=Transgenic%20Model%20Evaluation%20Ii%20%28Aspartame%29&cas_no=22839-47-0&study_no=C99033B&test_type=Short-Term&study_length=39%20Weeks&abstract_url=03E4FDB1-CCE9-970E-0455D3DC53465EA7&next=shorttermbioassaydata.datasearch

My knowledge of rats comes from 9 years of diganostics of rats, mice, rabbits and monkeys..

Here is some info on rat pathogens: GD7 also known as Theiler's:http://www.aalas.org/pdfUtility.aspx?pdf=CM/55_05_08.pdf

RCV/SDA
http://ratguide.com/health/viruses/sda.php

LCMV in rats:
http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/abstract/16/1/220

RCV/SDA is a HUGE problem in rats and has had multiple large outbreaks in the last few years. And it is very common for RCV to cause tumors in rats, and no other symptom. This virus alone has ruined many a study. Mice have their own pathogens but they tend not to get these types of tumors so frequently

[ironflange]

95. Aspartame is just two amino acids stuck together

Aspartic acid and phenylalanine. Unless you suffer from phenylketonurea, how can these two amino acids possibly hurt you? You eat them every day, in anything containing protein. I guess people still want to be scared of the boogey man.

[firefox_fan]

99. It's just the name... It sounds dangerous...

Something about "tar" in it.. Probably, if it were called "sweetoola" nobody would worry about it.

[NNadir]

102. It's a methyl ester.

Methyl esters are relatively rare in biological systems.

In any case, there are many peptides that are involved in the mechanisms of carcinogensis.

I am not, by the way, saying that aspartame is a carcinogen, only that it is possible for peptides to be involved in carcinogenic systems.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

153. Could you provide an example...

of a peptide directly involved in carcinogenesis?

Also, isn't methylation a rather common event in peptide processing?

[Up2Late]

100. Oh Brother! Not this BS again! This is a VERY Deceptively written article about a Bogus Study!

(I'm going to list the relevant links first so you can re-read or read for the first time all of this crap for yourself)

Here's the link to the actual study: <http://www.ehponline.org/members/2007/10271/10271.pdf>

Link to the Center for Science in the Public Interest page: <http://www.cspinet.org/new/200706251.html>

Link to the deceptively written article:

<http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Aspartame-linked-to-cancer-study/2007/06/26/1182623862983.html>

And, the report from: The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), The only food safety agency who has so far reviewed this "...flawed study" <http://www.efsa.europa.eu/etc/medialib/efsa/science/afc/afc_opinions/1471.Par.0001.File.dat/afc_op_ej356_aspartame_en1.pdf>

U.S. Government website sources:
<http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2007/10271/abstract.html/>

<http://www.niehs.nih.gov/>

Now, Read the Center for Science in the Public Interest page, what does it say? It says,

"The new study, conducted by the respected Ramazzini Foundation and published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, found statistically significant increases in lymphomas and leukemias in rats that were fed as little as 20 milligrams of the sweetener per kilogram of body weight—an amount that’s in the ballpark of what some people consume. The new study is superior to a similar one released in 2005 in that it began exposing the rats to aspartame before their birth.

“Because aspartame is so widely consumed, it is urgent that the FDA evaluate whether aspartame still poses a ‘reasonable certainty of no harm,’ the standard used for gaging the safety of food additives,” said CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson. “But consumers, particularly parents, shouldn’t wait for the FDA to act. People shouldn’t panic, but they should stop buying beverages and foods containing aspartame.”

The Acceptable Daily Intake of aspartame in the United States is 50 mg per kg of body weight. The new study looked at doses less than that (20 mg per kg) and greater (100 mg per kg). Though few people would consume aspartame at the higher dose, the lower does is equivalent to a 50-pound child drinking 2½ cans of diet soda per day, or a 150-pound adult drinking about 7½ cans of diet soda per day....

7 1/2 Cans of Soda PER DAY for a 150 pound ADULT!:wow:

Now since few American men are 150 pounds, lets bump that up to a more realistic figure for the LOWER dose to

10 Cans of Diet Soda PER DAY for the LOW DOSE TESTED!

As you will see in the actual report, thats 10 Cans, EVERY DAY for your ENTIRE LIFE, including PRE-NATAL!!!

Now, if you take the High Dose of 100mg per Kg PER DAY (5x the lower dose)! That equals what?

20 x 5 = 100,

so

10 Cans x 5 = 50 CANS of DIET SODA PER DAY, EVERY DAY!!!
That's 600 Ounces or 4.6875 Gallons of Diet Soda!:banghead:

FIFTY CANS OF DIET SODA, EVERY DAY FOR YOUR ENTIRE LIFE!!! :crazy:

I think that much of anything would cause problems in most people!

Don't take my word for it, read the report yourself.

In the Abstract (which is a sort of summary of the reason for and goals of the research) on page 4 it says,

"...Objective. The aim of this second study is to better quantify the
carcinogenic risk of APM (Aspartame), beginning treatment during fetal life. Methods. The study was conducted
on groups of 70-95 male and female Sprague Dawley rats, administered APM with feed at
concentrations of 2000, 400, or 0 ppm from the 12th day of fetal life until natural death. Results.
The results of the study show: a) a significant dose-related increase of malignant tumor-bearing
animals in males (p<0.01), in particular in the group treated at 2000 ppm (p<0.01); b) a significant
increase of the incidence in lymphomas/leukemias in males treated at 2000 ppm (p<0.05) and a
significant dose-related increase of the incidence of lymphomas/leukemias in females (p<0.01), in
particular in the group treated at 2000 ppm (p<0.01); c) a significant dose-related increase of the
incidence of mammary cancer in females (p<0.05), in particular in the group treated at 2000 ppm
(p<0.05).

Notice anything? Do you see specific claims for the lower dose in that paragraph? NO, and you won't find it in the data either.

Move to Page 5 where it says:

"...The acceptable daily intake (ADI) of
aspartame is currently 50 mg/kg body weight (bw) in the USA and 40 mg/kg bw in the EU for both
children and adults. Daily assumption of artificial sweeteners by women of childbearing age and
children has been estimated between 2.5 – 5.0 mg/kg bw (Butchko et al. 2002)...."

In other words, MOST "...women of childbearing age and children..." are probably only consuming "2.5 – 5.0 mg/kg bw" per day!

Now lets take a look at WHY this group is disputing the previous research! THIS quotes the previously done research in THIS NEW report as follows:

"...In vitro and in vivo tests demonstrate that APM (Aspartame) is not genotoxic. Likewise, long term
carcinogenicity studies conducted by the manufacturers of aspartame using rats and mice in the ‘70s
and ‘80s did not demonstrate any carcinogenic effects. We have reported a detailed review of the
genotoxicity and carcinogenicity studies available to date on APM in previous publications.
(Belpoggi et al. 2006; Soffritti et al. 2005; Soffritti et al. 2006). In our opinion, the small number of
animals used per sex/per group and the termination of these experiments after 110 weeks of age
rather than observing animals for the lifespan, represent limiting factors when evaluating the
6 carcinogenic risk or safety of artificial sweeteners such as aspartame. It was for this reason,
together with the growing use of APM in industrialized countries, that we designed and performed a
mega-experiment using 7 groups of Sprague-Dawley rats (100-150/sex/group), treated with APM in
feed at various dose levels (including one very close to the ADI for humans :redbox:), from 8 weeks of age
until natural death....

Yet, if you take the time to look at the reported data FROM THIS STUDY, approximately 85% of the Male Rats and about 65% of the Female Rats in THIS STUDY had already died by 110 weeks!!!

(my note):redbox: Remember, "...one very close to the ADI for humans" = 10 Cans of Diet Soda PER DAY for your ENTIRE LIFESPAN!

Plus, Why do they stop reporting the feed consumption at 112 weeks and the weight of the few surviving animals at 128 weeks? :shrug: THIS Study goes on until 160 weeks, yet some of the most important data just stops at 112 weeks??? WTF? :wtf:

Oh, and here's the best part, If you take a look at Figure 2 (B), the chart that shows the "...cumulative prevalence by age of death of female rats bearing hemolymphoreticular neoplasias when treatment began prenatally, THE CONTROL GROUP (the group NOT getting any Aspartame) has HAS MORE cases of hemolymphoreticular neoplasias (Leukemia & Lymphoma) than the group getting the equivalent of 10 Cans of DIET Soda Per Day for their ENTIRE LIFE! :spray:

The results tables and the graphs of the mortality of the studied rats (with it's incomplete feeding and body weight data in Figure 1, Charts A, B, and C) are on pages 18 though 24.

Still don't believe me, read the report yourself and Google the words you don't know: <http://www.ehponline.org/members/2007/10271/10271.pdf>

And if that doesn't help, read the report from The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) at this link: <http://www.efsa.europa.eu/etc/medialib/efsa/science/afc/afc_opinions/1471.Par.0001.File.dat/afc_op_ej356_aspartame_en1.pdf>

The best part starts on page 2.

Now, here's the link to this so-called "journal of peer-reviewed research and news..."
<http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2007/10271/abstract.html/>

Which is brought to us by, that's right, Georg W. Bush's Government, what we use to call The United States Government.

Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP) is a monthly journal of peer-reviewed research and news on the impact of the environment on human health. EHP is published by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and its content is free online.

Here's that link that site too: <http://www.niehs.nih.gov/>
(be sure to check out the "Kid's Pages," they usually have some "funny because it's so dumb" info on them if you look long enough.

Now, if you can find and post an article on the rising number of deaths due Tylenol O.D.s or mixing Tylenol and Alcoholic beverages, post that and I'm right with you.

[Odin2005]

104. Hence my coment above on woo woos and their aversion to facts.

[firefox_fan]

113. But but... It's a conspiracy!!!!

Don't you see it??!! LOL.

[progressoid]

136. Phew! I was worried for a minute.

Luckily, I only drink 38 cans a day.







do I have to add? :sarcasm:

[marions ghost]

103. There's just no good reason to drink this disgusting stuff

...watching the movie "Idiocracy" a few times might help people kick it.

[Strathos]

109. Uh, here's an idea, use REAL SUGAR

How stupid can people be?

Real sugar, as long as it's used moderately won't harm you. If you don't want to use real sugar, drink unsweet tea, use honey, but all those man made sweeteners can not be good for you.

[rayofreason]

111. Yep, use sugar.

Tastes great!

[Crowman1979]

132. Especially the Maui sugar.

I always have it in my coffee. Because the white bleached stuff gives me a headache.

[Up2Late]

116. Uh, here's a clue, some people can't drink Sugar! Ever heard a Diabetic?

And some of us don't want to "drink sugar," I drink 3 to 5 Diet Cokes per day, how many empty calories is that if I switched to Sugar Coke?
That's 155 Calories per 12 oz can x 5 = 755 empty calories. Should I just skip a meal to compensate?

<http://www.annecollins.com/calories/calories-coca-cola.htm>

I gave up drinking and eating Sugar and what's in Coke (it's not Sugar, it High Fructose CORN Syrup, it's not the same) in 1986! That over 20 years and guess what, I don't have cancer. Hummm.

Why, you might ask, even if you ignore the calories thing and diabetes thing, would someone do such a thing? Well there's is also the fact that white Sugar, also called Sucrose or Processed Sugar: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucrose>


is also a chemical, a VERY addictive chemical!

Ever have a craving for Chocolate or Nacho Cheese Doritos? Ever wonder why? It's not the Coco or the Nacho Cheese, it's the Sugar they add! The process food corporations add it to almost everything now.

Sucrose (common name: table sugar, also called saccharose) is a disaccharide (glucose + fructose) with the molecular formula C12H22O11. Its systematic name is α-D-glucopyranosyl-(1→2)-β-D-fructofuranose.

No thanks, I'll stick with the Caffeine Monkey I already have on my back.

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

128. drink water

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

156. Water's no good.

Water's been shown to contain high levels of dihyrdogen monoxide, which is fatal to labratory rats in high doses.

[progressoid]

137. not stupid...just hypoglycemic.

[AngryOldDem]

120. Well, I'm toast.

I drink more than my share of diet soda.

But the main cause of death? Life.

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

142. Pass the toast

I'm with you.

But I agree with your assessment of life's risk factors, and your sigline is one of my favorite quotes ever.

Also, I think rats cause cancer.

[IChing]

123. Man, I tried to make this about Rumsfeld and never thought

such a scientific discussion.

Me?
I just don't like the taste, but my parents said I had French ancestors.
Common sense should tell you if it doesn't taste good
there must be a reason.

You would be amazed what happens
when your taste buds have been desensitized over time by the
consumption of man-made products, when your first instinct was
that this taste like crap, unless your body has always consumed crap.

Sugar, milk and meat should become less in your diet as you get older.

This chemical is a Rumsfeld wet dream....

[Rosa Luxemburg]

126. Dump Rumsfeld in a barrel of Aspartame and let him drink the lot

[Lorien]

127. Check out the documentary "Sweet Misery"

Aspartame causes a whole host of problems. And how many people do you know that get horrible headaches from consuming ANYTHING with aspartame in it? Never should have been approved by the FDA, imho.

[michael_1166]

131. Exactly. I'm one of those people.

Since I stopped drinking/eating anything with aspartame in it, my headaches are gone.

I'm baffled why people still knowingly consume a poison Mr. Donald Rumsfeld helped to introduce into the food chain.

[Anwen]

139. I get wicked headaches too.

My fiance always chewed "sugar free" gum, and anytime I had a piece I'd get an instant headache. Not to mention it tasted nasty to me. After finding out how horrible fake sweetners are, I sent him some articles. Now he chews the good old-fashioned sugar gum again. :) I won't touch anything with fake sweeteners. Yuck.

[skids]

155. Switched from Diet Coke to Splenda Coke...

...no other changes, and my headaches vanished. I was nowhere near as sensitive as you were, though, it took a few cans of aspartame based soda to get my sinus area hurting.

No other diet changes during this time, just that one substitution. So count me among the "avoiding aspartame" crowd.

[Lorien]

161. I've tried three brands of Splenda sodas and ate some pie made with

splenda once. Each time I woke up with awful body aches the next day. At first I thought it might be some other ingredient in the sodas,but when I ate the slice of pie on Thanksgiving and had the same reaction the next day then Splenda became the obvious culprit. I googled "splenda dangers" and came up with plenty of disturbing sites. It looks like the FDA is, once again, putting profits over our safety. :-(

[puffthemagicdragon]

133. drink water

drink water, eat plenty of raw fruits and veggies and call it a day :)

[LeftHander]

134. I'll stick with Sugar...

For jebus sake...if you don't drink gallons of soda per day a drink like LEMONADE made with REAL SUGAR and LEMONS is quite good.

Most sugar is replaced now by High Fructose Corn Syrup which is effing nasty cheap crap. So you are better off drink homemade cool drinks like iced tea or lemonade...or for something novel...TAP WATER.

Oh and locally brewed beer.

[militaryspouse]

138. ..

thanks for this reminder. i've been drinking about two cans of coke-zero a day. I try to avoid it, but have gotten pretty lax lately. Plus they say that stuff increases your appetite anyway.

[Blue_Tires]

140. ttt n/t

[RadiDem]

154. Crap! I drink 4-5 diet sodas a day! I'ma gonna DIE! Bye DU! Kucinich 08!

[DemBones DemBones]

176. I gave up aspartame years ago, after I

saw Rummy's picture on Searle's web site. This was pre-2000 but I remembered that evil face.

Of course, I had also read about studies, but when I saw Rummy, that was it for me and aspartame.