Why Aspartame Isn't Scary

Options
1…4445474950…89

Replies

  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Options
    youngmomtaz wrote: »
    stevencloser wrote: »
    youngmomtaz wrote: »
    Cream comes from my friends milk cow. I can choose to put it in my coffee, shake it in a jar to make a nice little lump of butter, or blend it with sugar and vanilla and run it through my old fashioned crank ice cream maker. But of course I know that is not possible for everyone. I love my life! I am never sure why the statement "naturally occurring" seems to get people's panties in a bunch. It is not a difficult way to live, even if you cannot grow your own. I did not say ONLY, I ate sour patch kids, Dairy Queen cake, all sorts of other things I don't typically choose yesterday. But that is the point, I can choose right? I don't see why my choice cannot be met with the same respect given to vegetarians and vegans.

    If your choice is based on an irrational fear that is completely unfounded by any science to date since they started checking it back in the 70s or so, wouldn't you want to know that? I know I would.

    Who said anything about fear?

    I am choosing "non-man made" items to eat. That is the same when I am prescribed a drug, when given the option of a few that serve the same purpose I am likely to choose the one with the least amount of side affects or the one whose side affects will not increase symptoms I already have. When artificial sweeteners give me an almost instant headache there is something wrong and that is a side affect I will avoid when possible. I am likely to make choices daily on inane things like heating my food in glass instead of plastic, if and when I will apply sunscreen, if I think the benefits of a meal containing soy products outweigh the risks of hormone disruption. And it goes on. All choices that may or may not affect my health. I don't really think food should be made in a lab, it should be grown. Personal opinion there and I am thankful every day to be able to express it. But this is just a choice the same as any other. I can read studies the same as you can. And I can read about the science that evolves to be smarter than the science before it. That is the nature and the point of scientific study I would assume. They determined that BPA was unsafe, they assess the drugs that were released to the public and later killed, maimed and otherwise harmed.

    If I have made a choice to eat food not chemically manipulated though structurally the same, I am not losing out. Nobody is adversely affected. I would say my food tastes good, we are well fed, possibly have saved some money, and we made a choice.

    What is the reasoning if not fear?
    Fear of "man-made" foods being inferior, or even dangerous to you when they're not.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Options
    Aaron, you're a gentleman and a scholar and your way with words is extremely sexy.
  • kk_inprogress
    kk_inprogress Posts: 3,077 Member
    Options
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    I am choosing "non-man made" items to eat.

    What did you find in a supermarket that was not man-made youngmomtaz? Could you give some examples of foods that would exist without human intervention that can be found in a grocery store?

    This idea that somehow an apple or almonds or a bananna or corn or anything else you find in a store came into being from natural processes rather than through manipulation by our civilization by our own hands. Those things are as man-made as anything else in our civilization. We made apples, we made almonds, we made banannas...they do not exist in that form anywhere in the wild. We altered the wild versions using our technology of the time in order to make what we felt were improvements in them for our wellbeing. This is a good thing, and this anti-humanity pro-anything-natural attitude I really do not understand. If you found and ate a handful of wild almonds you would be dead. Nature does not have your interests in mind, it doesn't have a mind....humanity does.

    So then we have to revise this again. By "natural" not only do you mean "not man-made" you also mean "not man-made by this one particular modern technique". You draw this arbitrary line in the sand. If it was man-made by selective breeding over 2 thousand years I guess that is okay despite the fact that the end product does not resemble anything found in actual nature.

    Why is something made "in a lab" the line that you have drawn? What is the actual difference? You might point out that selective breeding uses natural processes. Well guess what so does genetic engineering and so do labs, or are labs and genetic engineering somehow supernatural and unbound by natural laws?

    What harm does this attitude cause? It perpetuates a false and misleading worldview that ends up leading to governments defunding scientific endevours based not on research or study of benefit demonstrated but rather on the whim of public opinion on the basis of beliefs garnered from stories on the internet. It makes decisions regarding the development of foods for deployment in developing countries where most of the population suffers vitamin deficiencies (such as Golden Rice) dependent on the approval of a fickle first-world public who aren't sure they should trust the source of the caramel food coloring in their double-carmel frappacino. If you think the anti-GMO sentiment in the United States has no impact on charitable non-profit developments that utilize GE then you are just ignorant. I don't use the word ignorant to offend, I'm just saying you are unaware of it but being unaware of it doesn't make it somehow okay or not harmful. As a scientist it is incredibly frustrating and gets my "panties" into that aforementioned "bunch".

    Marry me.
  • TheopolisAmbroiseIII
    TheopolisAmbroiseIII Posts: 197 Member
    Options
    snickerscharlie wrote: »
    TheopolisAmbroiseIII wrote: »
    snickerscharlie wrote: »
    booksandchocolate12 wrote: »
    UltimateRBF wrote: »
    mrshollamby2015 wrote: »
    Aspartame almost killed me I ended up with blood poisoning and it's because of this! I went into anaphylactic shock I don't care what anyone says it's dangerous

    That just means it's dangerous to you.

    Exactly. My daughter's friend has a peanut allergy. Consuming peanuts might result in anaphylactic shock for her.

    So, I guess that means that peanuts are dangerous and should be avoided by everyone?

    Of course! Much easier than expecting the allergic person to simply avoid their allergen or carry an Epi-Pen.

    I'm allergic to wasps. Yes, deathly allergic. I carry an Epi-Pen, but I would happily have wasps eradicated off the planet because I've never found a good or irreplaceable need for them in nature's food chain anyway. :)

    Eradicate wasps and say good bye to figs!

    Okay, eradicate wasps in Canada, then, because we don't grow any figs here. :smiley:

    I'm in. You start from out west and I'll start frrom the east coast and we'll meet in Ontario.
  • racheletibbs
    racheletibbs Posts: 3 Member
    edited December 2015
    Options
    maidentl wrote: »
    Why would anyone want to ingest something that needs a defense like that?

    The substance doesn't need a defense like that, the people running around screaming "POISON! POISON IN THE SODA!!!" need it, although as we have seen, even facts won't sway some people.

    That made me laugh so hard :smiley: Also, thanks Aaron, for helping me enjoy my diet coke without worry.
  • mikeski52
    mikeski52 Posts: 59 Member
    Options
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    mikeski52 wrote: »
    Are there any studies about the effects of aspartame (and other sweeteners I guess) on dental hygiene?

    Also, I've heard that artificial sweeteners can increase insulin production unnecessarily; are there studies of such things, and if so do you know of any you can point out to those of us that are curious?
    If it caused insulin issues, diet sodas wouldn't be a recommended option for diabetics according to the American Diabetics Association.

    Ok, so what are the studies that the ADA refered to when they made their decision to recommend diet sodas?
  • tomteboda
    tomteboda Posts: 2,171 Member
    Options
    Mind blowing fact: cooking alters the chemical composition of foods.
  • earlnabby
    earlnabby Posts: 8,171 Member
    Options
    allaboutthefood wrote: »
    Well good or bad for you?? Don't really know. All I know is if I have something with aspartame in it, I get really sick. So that makes me stay away.

    There are some people with what is basically an allergy/sensitivity to it, like many other foods. You definitely are one of those who needs to stay away from it. It is perfectly safe for the majority of the population.
  • vingogly
    vingogly Posts: 1,785 Member
    Options
    bikinilinds wrote: »
    Why even risk it? After all, it still is a possible carcinogen. I stay away from all artificial sweeteners. I only eat the real stuff.

    Your diet is probably loaded with plenty of naturally-occurring carcinogens. See:

    http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2002/11/01/naturally-occurring-mutagens-and-carcinogens-found-foods-and-beverages
  • jgnatca
    jgnatca Posts: 14,464 Member
    Options
    mikeski52 wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    mikeski52 wrote: »
    Are there any studies about the effects of aspartame (and other sweeteners I guess) on dental hygiene?

    Also, I've heard that artificial sweeteners can increase insulin production unnecessarily; are there studies of such things, and if so do you know of any you can point out to those of us that are curious?
    If it caused insulin issues, diet sodas wouldn't be a recommended option for diabetics according to the American Diabetics Association.

    Ok, so what are the studies that the ADA refered to when they made their decision to recommend diet sodas?

    ADA - we are research leaders

    Here's the research they are funding, which is more focused on finding a cure

    A literature review and conclusion from the ADA and the American Heart Association.
    http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/35/8/1798.short

    In other words, Aspartame is not scary. I for one am glad the ADA is focusing it's research elsewhere.
  • jgnatca
    jgnatca Posts: 14,464 Member
    Options
    vingogly wrote: »
    bikinilinds wrote: »
    Why even risk it? After all, it still is a possible carcinogen. I stay away from all artificial sweeteners. I only eat the real stuff.

    Your diet is probably loaded with plenty of naturally-occurring carcinogens. See:

    http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2002/11/01/naturally-occurring-mutagens-and-carcinogens-found-foods-and-beverages

    ...and likely the most prevalent carcinogen of all is sunshine.
  • mikeski52
    mikeski52 Posts: 59 Member
    Options
    jgnatca wrote: »
    mikeski52 wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    mikeski52 wrote: »
    Are there any studies about the effects of aspartame (and other sweeteners I guess) on dental hygiene?

    Also, I've heard that artificial sweeteners can increase insulin production unnecessarily; are there studies of such things, and if so do you know of any you can point out to those of us that are curious?
    If it caused insulin issues, diet sodas wouldn't be a recommended option for diabetics according to the American Diabetics Association.

    Ok, so what are the studies that the ADA refered to when they made their decision to recommend diet sodas?

    ADA - we are research leaders

    Here's the research they are funding, which is more focused on finding a cure

    A literature review and conclusion from the ADA and the American Heart Association.
    http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/35/8/1798.short

    In other words, Aspartame is not scary. I for one am glad the ADA is focusing it's research elsewhere.

    Thanks for the links. I already know aspartame isn't scary, I just want to know what research has been done about this specific topic.
  • dougfarrar1
    dougfarrar1 Posts: 19 Member
    Options
    If you are a biochemist, you should know that a properly conducted scientific study holds WAY more credibility that your own "logic" as a scientist. What you wrote is a hypothesis. Unfortunately, the actual research on aspartame shows it is harmful. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=aspartame+journal+articles&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,10&as_vis=1
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Options
    dougfarrar1 wrote: »
    If you are a biochemist, you should know that a properly conducted scientific study holds WAY more credibility that your own "logic" as a scientist. What you wrote is a hypothesis. Unfortunately, the actual research on aspartame shows it is harmful. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=aspartame+journal+articles&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,10&as_vis=1

    Have you read ANY part of this thread? At all?
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Options
    "Food additive approval is based on a robust hazard and risk characterization, leading to the establishment of an ADI and often a maximum permitted level (MPL) in foods. They must be subjected to a wide range of tests, devised to assess potential risks to the consumer, before they are allowed in food. Tests assess how the additive reacts in the body and also look for any toxic effects at and above the levels the additive is to be used in food. This includes testing to see if there is any chance of genetic damage or cancers being caused by the long-term use of the additive. A formal process for safety evaluation exists at national and international levels for analysing the test data on food additives, setting the ADIs and publishing the results.

    In Europe, food additives permitted before 20 January 2009 must go through a new risk assessment by EFSA; furthermore, at any time, the authority can revise its decision on the basis of new data reporting toxicological effects. In the case of aspartame, this process was undertaken almost every year, with the production of a relevant number of opinions and statements, all confirming no safety concerns below the established ADI."

    http://www.obesityday.org/usr_files/news/aspartame_low-calorie_sweeteners.pdf
  • MarianJones889
    MarianJones889 Posts: 1 Member
    Options
    Many years ago I read a 'very American' article that claimed that some people don't break down aspartame and it builds up in muscles. True or not, it persuaded me to cut it out and I described the difference (I have fibromyalgia) as I no longer walked through mud, I walked through water. My daughter says it gives her a sore throat. Let's face it. Omitting it from our diet is not depriving us of a vital food group. Perhaps people should experiment. If cutting it out feels better then leave it out. If you don't notice a difference, the science confirms it will be doing you no harm, so go back to using products that contain it without worry.
  • successgal1
    successgal1 Posts: 996 Member
    Options
    Makes me jittery.
  • redraidergirl2009
    redraidergirl2009 Posts: 2,560 Member
    Options
    You can say all you want not to be afraid of it but ever since I quit it I haven't had a single migraine. I used to get them frequently
  • GoalWeight165by2018
    GoalWeight165by2018 Posts: 48 Member
    Options
    Husband is a molecular biologist, and agrees wit everything OP said.
    Which is good, because you will pry my cherry coke zero out of my cold dead hands.
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    edited December 2015
    Options
    dougfarrar1 you appear to have simply done a google search. I am not sure how you think that demonstrates aspartame is harmful. Perhaps you can point to a specific scientific study, one you have actually read, that you believe indicates that aspartame is harmful to humans.

    While you are at it perhaps you can explain what is wrong with this review from the journal of Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology as it seems to contradict your viewpoint that studies have concluded that aspartame represents a safety risk

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230002915424

    Fact is due to unwarranted concern much MUCH more time (and money and scientific resource) has been spent studying the safety of aspartame than was at all warranted. It has been studied more than any other food additive and the results are clear. Not only is there no reason to suspect it is unsafe based on the biochemistry that I outlined but there is no evidence of harm when it is actually tested in humans.

    Please link to a specific study that makes you feel that there is evidence of harm in humans. If you want me to comment on it you should be able to say that this is a study that you have personally read cover to cover and that you believe is evidence that aspartame is dangerous to humans. This requirement is in place simply because I am tired of spending 5 hours reading a study someone links to me from a 5 second google search they did without having bothered to read it themselves.

Categories