Why Aspartame Isn't Scary

B. The opposition has enough science based information to offer a counter.

I haven't seen it. If you know of this scientific based information with regards to toxicity of aspartame please post it here so it can be examined and discussed. No one has bothered yet and I have yet to find anything at all that remotely holds water.

As for Diketopiperazine, a group of peptides, have been widely used in the pharmaceutical field for cardiovascular, anti-fungal, and anti-tumor needs.

However (and as a science minded individual) I'd like to create a little balance here - the DKP molecules are biologically active and do have risks. I was involved in the marketing and sales of two - maximal dosages, side effects are a real thing. Just because a molecule is used in pharma does not make it generally safe nor is the simple biochemistry of a reaction sufficient to understand what really occurs in a human population.

We've had drug withdrawals or sweeteners removed from market on more than one occasion due to this. Human physiological response goes beyond the petri dish. For example, Mg3Si4O10(OH)2 is simple talcum powder. Remove a little water and you have Mg3Si2O5(OH)4 - commonly known as Serpentine or Lizardite. Also known as the deadly Asbestos. Cancer in a fiber. Here the form factor of the mineral is the primary issue not the biochemistry.

So while I agree that the possible quantities of DKP metabolized from drinking soda are insignificant (LD50 is somewhere in the 3000 mg/kg range...) - the argument that they are safe because they are used in pharma holds no water.

Btw, the use of LD50 as a measure of toxicity is insufficient - all pharma active drugs with or without significant side effects have dosages well below LD50 - it doesn't make them generally safe - it allows one to decide benefits/risk. And it certainly does cover selective cytotoxicity, carcinogenicity, teratogenicity, etc..

Remember Thalidomide? It is virtually impossible to reach LD50 levels and it was considered safe. Thankfully testing has evolved from the 60s - well beyond LD50 assays.

The reason Aspartame is considered safe is that it has been significantly tested in a variety of labs and with a variety of methods to cover those points. It is the single most tested additive ever submitted to agencies.

On the other hand, an individual may consider that the benefit to risk of an artificial sweetener (sweet at lower calories) vs (GRAS with PKU limitations) just isn't worth it. It might even be a reasonable well thought-out decision given the past failures of evaluation processes and the ever evolving bio-assay business.

Finally, even with a GRAS status pregnant women are recommended to not be taking Aspartame since it isn't possible to identify if the unborn child has PKU.

I consider Aspartame safe, I just think the discussion might go a little further. :drinker:

I believe that aspartame at moderate intake is considered safe during pregnancy unless the mother has PKU herself. These are current recommendations in my country, and the USA I think. It's not really about the child having PKU in utero.

Let's say that mum is a carrier and the child has PKU. As a carrier, she can still metabolise Phe, so that her blood levels are normal and the teratogenic effects don't occur in the baby. The baby's diet is then restricted at birth.

The issue is when the mum has PKU and doesn't restrict her diet through pregnancy. Blood levels of Phe are too high, it crosses the placenta and the teratogenic effects can occur. This would happen whether the child has PKU or not.

That's my understanding anyway.

Makes sense and it seems I remembered the FDA reco's incorrectly. I stand corrected.
However - given that PKU carrier status is likely silent and I would be cautious here.

That's the thing though, carrier status isn't important. Carriers can process Phe and therefore there is no excess Phe to affect the child in-utero even if the child does have PKU. PKU children are generally born with no issue at birth from their carrier mothers. It's only after birth when the child is ingesting proteins that Phe becomes an issue and needs to be controlled.

On the other hand, PKU mums (homozygotes) must control Phe during pregnancy because excess levels cross the placenta and act as a teratogen. This occurs whether the baby has PKU (homozygote) or not (heterozygote).

BTW, I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just wanted to clarify. It's an interesting area (nutritional control of genetic metabolic conditions) and an area of interest of mine as I have both genetics and dietetics backgrounds.

True, however variant PKU and what is now called non-PKU hyperphenylalaninaemia (I'm old, this was mild PKU in my genetics classes in the '80s) or mild HA. can be untreated and undiagnosed. These carrier/functional status may be present and while it doesn't lead to the severity of issues seen with maternal PKU, they do appear to lead to less than optimal development (I had to do some reading on that, ref on bottom). So screening and dietary constraint *might* be a good idea - well, in absence of prevalence data - caution is a good idea.

Then again, it also seems that there might not be significant impact or teratogenicity with mild HA. (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/112/Supplement_4/1548.full.pdf) Soooo, I might be reaching with the above - I'll accept that. My own personal hypersensitivity to silent genetic disorders (Tay Sachs recessive carrier) and a still-birth experience couple with a science/research/Pharma background - makes me cautious to consider PKU as an all or nothing autosomal recessive, and always clinically characterized.

(Levy HL, Waisbren SE, Lobbregt D, et al. Maternal mild hyperphenylalaninaemia: an international survey of offspring outcome. Lancet. 1994;344:1589–1594)

Ps - be as "argumentative" as you like, I enjoy the learning/discussion opportunity.

I'm not anti-aspartame, but I do find it odd, and perhaps a little inappropriate, that his is stickied on a fitness/calorie counting site. Is MFP somehow funded by an aspartame company?

I don't drink aspartame because it tastes terrible, but drink whatever you want. I don't think it's likely to kill you but I also don't think it's particularly healthy. Give me unsweet iced tea over diet coke any day.

I'm not anti-aspartame, but I do find it odd, and perhaps a little inappropriate, that his is stickied on a fitness/calorie counting site. Is MFP somehow funded by an aspartame company?

I thought that was odd as well, but some people really love their diet drinks I guess.

I also thought it was odd that the article going around the other day comparing people who drank diet drinks (which included tea and flavored water) kept getting sold as 'diet SODA is healthy' when it did not isolate soda.

I would find it inappropriate if there weren't daily posts about people giving up drinks because of evil Aspartame. To me, this thread somewhat nips that in the bud (although I know we will still see them, and noobs probably won't read this).

Yeah I think that is the idea, just having it be reference for the times where it comes up in other threads.

I just wanted to state for emphasis that the purpose of this post was just to show why I believe current scientific evidence indicates aspartame is safe for consumption. I did NOT intend this post to be advocating soda consumption as being healthy and I don't think I ever say that anywhere in here.

There is a difference between saying something won't harm you and saying that it is "healthy".