Why Aspartame Isn't Scary

BlueBaron37

I'm not scared of the stuff just I hear it's made from the feces of the E-Coli bacteria, that's why I avoid it.

Keepcalmanddontblink

I do NOT think that expertise or background is proof that someone is correct so I invite anyone and everyone who is interested to look into this yourself. I just mention it because I know I will likely be asked.

Agreed - which is why I was curious as to your analysis of the anti-aspartame studies.

I'd be equally interested in someone who is anti-aspartame to explain exactly why they feel that way...but fair warning "because I read it on the internet" or "because it's hard to pronounce" will not be acceptable answers over science.

I also encourage anyone who honestly believe that aspartame is dangerous to post here and explain in a reasoned way why you feel that is the case.

I don't really feel like its dangerous, but I personally cannot have that or any kind of fake sugar like NutraSweet or Splenda. I get massive headaches using it so I just stopped drinking soda with it and any products with it. Now I can tolerate smaller doses of it, like a stick of gum once in awhile.
Around 2 years ago, I would buy 4 cases of soda and our family would be through all four of them within the week, and in my defense, I never had more than one can a day and always got a headache from it. I just think my body has a hard time processing certain foods, but I don't feel like its evil. I am allergic to shellfish too, but that's my own allergy to worry about.

After I gave up soda for plain water, the headaches stopped, but the weight gain continued. I suspect that my own tendencies to overeat and not pay attention to what and how much I ate, as a cause for the weight gain. Soon as I got my eating habits in order, the weight started falling off! Go figure!

Someone else already said, that some people can't process certain things, and just to avoid it and not be preachy about it Totally agree.

fatcity66

There are SO many more....my point is, for all the studies saying aspartame is safe, there are just as many (maybe more) saying it's not. To conclude, then, that it's "safe" overall, and has no negative effects, seems, to put it gently...rather short-sighted.

Any of these that don't involve administering supraphysiological doses to cancer-prone rats?

Yep. Like I said just enter the search term "aspartame" in PubMed. There are literally 50+ pages of results. Read through just a few.

fatcity66

There are SO many more....my point is, for all the studies saying aspartame is safe, there are just as many (maybe more) saying it's not. To conclude, then, that it's "safe" overall, and has no negative effects, seems, to put it gently...rather short-sighted.

Any of these that don't involve administering supraphysiological doses to cancer-prone rats?

^^^ That.

Yes, many, many, many, studies. Go to PubMed.

SideSteel

There are SO many more....my point is, for all the studies saying aspartame is safe, there are just as many (maybe more) saying it's not. To conclude, then, that it's "safe" overall, and has no negative effects, seems, to put it gently...rather short-sighted.

Any of these that don't involve administering supraphysiological doses to cancer-prone rats?

^^^ That.

Yes, many, many, many, studies. Go to PubMed.

I have, and I'd like you to provide an example with a link to a study where harmful effects are shown using doses that approximate what humans would typically consume.

Achrya

There are SO many more....my point is, for all the studies saying aspartame is safe, there are just as many (maybe more) saying it's not. To conclude, then, that it's "safe" overall, and has no negative effects, seems, to put it gently...rather short-sighted.

Any of these that don't involve administering supraphysiological doses to cancer-prone rats?

Yep. Like I said just enter the search term "aspartame" in PubMed. There are literally 50+ pages of results. Read through just a few.

"There are many examples of X, hundreds even! I won't be providing them myself of course in order to back up my claim and odds are if you say you can't find any I'll just say you didn't look/are lying."

wonderwoman234

So I will bite because I am admittedly curious as to what the response is.

How is a bananna or an apple or rice or an almond or basically anything you can name from the grocery store less "processed" than a can of soda. Is it because the can of soda is in an aluminum can because I'll grant you that, although I guess almonds can also come in aluminum cans.

I mean what criteria are you using here to define what constitutes "processed". Human intervention? Amount of time of human intervention? Number of separate ingredients? What constitutes a "separate ingredient" in a meaningful way? Chemicals? What is the difference between a "natural" chemical and a "processed" chemical? I get the feeling that when I think chemical and when you think chemical we are picturing two completely different concepts.

If we selectively bred cows for millennium to lactate aspartame-milk do you think the future whole-foods crowd would lap it up as nutritious because now its "natural"? Can you think of any "whole food" you'd find in the grocery store today that hasn't undergone millennium of selective breeding?

I just feel that if you really sit down and think about it its pretty clear what an arbitrary distinction you are making between "natural" and "artificial" when you pick something up from a grocery store.

Are you sure you weren't a philosophy major? I suggest a career change to law.

Aaron_K123

There are SO many more....my point is, for all the studies saying aspartame is safe, there are just as many (maybe more) saying it's not. To conclude, then, that it's "safe" overall, and has no negative effects, seems, to put it gently...rather short-sighted.

Any of these that don't involve administering supraphysiological doses to cancer-prone rats?

Yep. Like I said just enter the search term "aspartame" in PubMed. There are literally 50+ pages of results. Read through just a few.

How many of those did you actually read past the title and the abstract? The citation I provided is the most recent review and metaanalysis of the current body of work on aspartame regarding human clinical trials for toxicity and I actually read it. Here it is again:

http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10408440701516184

here is another clinical meta related specifically to carcinogen studies

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23891579

I cannot comment on things I haven't read. If there is a specific article that you have read and found something in worth discussing explain the content of the study, refer to it by citation and refer to the data within that study to support the claim. If you are just going to hand wave at 50+ studies but you haven't bothered to read a single one I'm not sure what you want me to do with that.

QueenBishOTUniverse

Oh I see, this is where all the fun has been hiding today.

Aaron_K123

So I will bite because I am admittedly curious as to what the response is.

How is a bananna or an apple or rice or an almond or basically anything you can name from the grocery store less "processed" than a can of soda. Is it because the can of soda is in an aluminum can because I'll grant you that, although I guess almonds can also come in aluminum cans.

I mean what criteria are you using here to define what constitutes "processed". Human intervention? Amount of time of human intervention? Number of separate ingredients? What constitutes a "separate ingredient" in a meaningful way? Chemicals? What is the difference between a "natural" chemical and a "processed" chemical? I get the feeling that when I think chemical and when you think chemical we are picturing two completely different concepts.

If we selectively bred cows for millennium to lactate aspartame-milk do you think the future whole-foods crowd would lap it up as nutritious because now its "natural"? Can you think of any "whole food" you'd find in the grocery store today that hasn't undergone millennium of selective breeding?

I just feel that if you really sit down and think about it its pretty clear what an arbitrary distinction you are making between "natural" and "artificial" when you pick something up from a grocery store.

Are you sure you weren't a philosophy major? I suggest a career change to law.

Not sure what you are implying here. I have yet to hear a definition that can discriminate between a "whole food" and a "processed" food at the grocery store and yet so many people talk about how they only eat "whole foods" and avoid "processed foods". I think they just mean they avoid things that are in cans.

To refer to grocery store produce as "natural" though kind of ignores the last 4 thousand years of human intervention.

tigersword

Unfortunately, it's bad science to cherry-pick data. Few studies meet everyone's gold-standard. No study is perfect, and anyone can choose to invalidate any study at any time by pointing out its failings. Which leaves us with the question "which studies do you trust"? And Monsanto/Searle/NutraSweet has a lot of money to throw into a huge number of studies by different organizations to create an illusion of safety.

I know this-- my own appetite is better controlled when I'm not consuming aspartame vs. when I am. I don't have tendinitis flare-ups when I'm not consuming aspartame vs. when I am. My blood sugars are better when I'm not consuming aspartame vs. when I am (I have read studies that indicate that aspartame triggers a sugar release from the liver in some people).

So, will I consume aspartame? No. I get much better results using stevia to sweeten those few things that I consume which I want sweeter. I believe the science that is out there supports my personal observations in my own life, and the lives of others I am familiar with. I just trust the science more that shows aspartame to be bad for the body. Whether it's toxic or carcinogenic or mutagenic or whatever....

"It's bad science to cherry pick data."

"I specifically trust the cherry picked data that says it's bad."

Seems legit.

SanteMulberry

The story of the approval process for aspartame (in spite of the many objections from the medical community) is an entertaining read: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robbie-gennet/donald-rumsfeld-and-the-s_b_805581.html

I have just two questions: If aspartame is so safe, why was the FDA's own toxicologist, Dr. Adrian Gross convinced that it was indeed toxic? And why are so many other physicians and neuroscientists convinced that it is harmful?

Aaron_K123

The story of the approval process for aspartame (in spite of the many objections from the medical community) is an entertaining read: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robbie-gennet/donald-rumsfeld-and-the-s_b_805581.html

I have just two questions: If aspartame is so safe, why was the FDA's own toxicologist, Dr. Adrian Gross convinced that it was indeed toxic? And why are so many other physicians and neuroscientists convinced that it is harmful?

Can't comment without a citation, too vague.

People please, if you want a comment about something provide some sort of link to what you are talking about. Don't just hand-wave.

If where you got this information is someones blog then at least try to dig deeper to find the original source material and cite that, I don't want to have to dig for you. It has been 17 pages of thread and I am admittedly getting a bit tired of this.

Primary sources you yourself have read...not second-hand anecdotes from personal opinion piece blogs. If you are not going to take the time to do that then I don't know what you expect me to do here.

QueenBishOTUniverse

The story of the approval process for aspartame (in spite of the many objections from the medical community) is an entertaining read: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robbie-gennet/donald-rumsfeld-and-the-s_b_805581.html

I have just two questions: If aspartame is so safe, why was the FDA's own toxicologist, Dr. Adrian Gross convinced that it was indeed toxic? And why are so many other physicians and neuroscientists convinced that it is harmful?

Can't comment without a citation, too vague.

People please, if you want a comment about something provide some sort of link to what you are talking about. Don't just hand-wave.

If where you got this information is someones blog then at least try to dig deeper to find the original source material and cite that, I don't want to have to dig for you. It has been 17 pages of thread and I am admittedly getting a bit tired of this.

Don't you know? That's what you get for trying to be helpful on MFP. Just be a big meanie, it's much more fun.

SanteMulberry

The story of the approval process for aspartame (in spite of the many objections from the medical community) is an entertaining read: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robbie-gennet/donald-rumsfeld-and-the-s_b_805581.html

I have just two questions: If aspartame is so safe, why was the FDA's own toxicologist, Dr. Adrian Gross convinced that it was indeed toxic? And why are so many other physicians and neuroscientists convinced that it is harmful?

Can't comment without a citation, too vague.

People please, if you want a comment about something provide some sort of link to what you are talking about. Don't just hand-wave.

If where you got this information is someones blog then at least try to dig deeper to find the original source material and cite that, I don't want to have to dig for you. It has been 17 pages of thread and I am admittedly getting a bit tired of this.

Um, if you will check the link, it is an article from the Huffington Post and it is footnoted.

tigersword

So I will bite because I am admittedly curious as to what the response is.

How is a bananna or an apple or rice or an almond or basically anything you can name from the grocery store less "processed" than a can of soda. Is it because the can of soda is in an aluminum can because I'll grant you that, although I guess almonds can also come in aluminum cans.

I mean what criteria are you using here to define what constitutes "processed". Human intervention? Amount of time of human intervention? Number of separate ingredients? What constitutes a "separate ingredient" in a meaningful way? Chemicals? What is the difference between a "natural" chemical and a "processed" chemical? I get the feeling that when I think chemical and when you think chemical we are picturing two completely different concepts.

If we selectively bred cows for millennium to lactate aspartame-milk do you think the future whole-foods crowd would lap it up as nutritious because now its "natural"? Can you think of any "whole food" you'd find in the grocery store today that hasn't undergone millennium of selective breeding?

I just feel that if you really sit down and think about it its pretty clear what an arbitrary distinction you are making between "natural" and "artificial" when you pick something up from a grocery store.

Are you sure you weren't a philosophy major? I suggest a career change to law.

Not sure what you are implying here. I have yet to hear a definition that can discriminate between a "whole food" and a "processed" food at the grocery store and yet so many people talk about how they only eat "whole foods" and avoid "processed foods". I think they just mean they avoid things that are in cans.

To refer to grocery store produce as "natural" though kind of ignores the last 4 thousand years of human intervention.

The is not a single food on this Earth currently that existed 500 years ago. We have changed and selected for and cultivated every single food item we consume. If you travel back to the 1500s, not many foods would be recognizable. Carrots weren't orange. Cucumbers were poisonous and bitter. Tomatoes didn't exist. No apples. At least, no apple that we would recognize. Pigs, cows, chickens, completely unrecognizable. It boggles my mind that people think we haven't spend hundreds and thousands of years specifically manipulating everything we've ever eaten. Hell, the entire field of genetics came out of us specifically manipulating food crops to create the specific foods we want to eat.

Aaron_K123

The story of the approval process for aspartame (in spite of the many objections from the medical community) is an entertaining read: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robbie-gennet/donald-rumsfeld-and-the-s_b_805581.html

I have just two questions: If aspartame is so safe, why was the FDA's own toxicologist, Dr. Adrian Gross convinced that it was indeed toxic? And why are so many other physicians and neuroscientists convinced that it is harmful?

Can't comment without a citation, too vague.

People please, if you want a comment about something provide some sort of link to what you are talking about. Don't just hand-wave.

If where you got this information is someones blog then at least try to dig deeper to find the original source material and cite that, I don't want to have to dig for you. It has been 17 pages of thread and I am admittedly getting a bit tired of this.

Um, if you will check the link, it is an article from the Huffington Post and it is footnoted.

Did you read the footnoted primary sources yourself? Yes or no.

I'm really tired of people reading a 1 page news article that footnotes 12 primary studies that they haven't themselves read and then expect me to go through the trouble of commenting.

I do not comment on things I haven't read, to comment on this I would have to read through all those footnotes. If you have done that yourself and can highlight the specific portions you want me to address then fine but if all you did was read the article and not the primary sources yet want me to read the primary sources myself I find that a bit annoying.

At first I did that but after 17 pages of this happening I'm getting a little tired of it. Sorry but yeah.

So have you read those footnotes yourself or did you only read the Op Ed piece?

tigersword

The story of the approval process for aspartame (in spite of the many objections from the medical community) is an entertaining read: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robbie-gennet/donald-rumsfeld-and-the-s_b_805581.html

I have just two questions: If aspartame is so safe, why was the FDA's own toxicologist, Dr. Adrian Gross convinced that it was indeed toxic? And why are so many other physicians and neuroscientists convinced that it is harmful?

Can't comment without a citation, too vague.

People please, if you want a comment about something provide some sort of link to what you are talking about. Don't just hand-wave.

If where you got this information is someones blog then at least try to dig deeper to find the original source material and cite that, I don't want to have to dig for you. It has been 17 pages of thread and I am admittedly getting a bit tired of this.

Um, if you will check the link, it is an article from the Huffington Post and it is footnoted.

Yes, footnoted with sources that are known to be biased, untrustworthy, and discredited. HuffPo isn't a scientific journal, it's a magazine. Any article that lists a guy like Mercola, who has been soundly discredited many times, as a source is not a valid article for debate. And Betty Martini is also a fraud.

amwbox

I'm not scared of the stuff just I hear it's made from the feces of the E-Coli bacteria, that's why I avoid it.

Bacteria are singled celled organisms. They don't have digestive tracts, much less feces. Doesn't work that way.

And, don't be scared of bacteria. There are more bacterial cells in your body than human cells...and the list of foods, medicines, products etc that we use every day that are produced via bacteria is GIGANTIC.

All this "bacteria poop" stuff is nonsense designed to prey on the fears of the misinformed.

Murphy0126

Saved for later to show my neurotic mother when I see her again...