Why Aspartame Isn't Scary

This post is the perfect case of how the history of mankind repeats itself.

Indeed, throughout the history of mankind we have seen two things over and over: trying to explain the world with science of the time and improving the technology so that science falls behind.

Unfortunately, this case looks the same with the same mistakes. Trying to explain the world of the human body as a pure biochemical machine with the current knowledge of novel science of biochemistry and this is the flaw in the logic of this post! It's not your advanced skills, studies and understanding of biochemistry, it's that this is limited to the current advances in biochemistry itself!

So the real question would be:

"Can current Science assess the safety of artificial sweeteners?"

Or is this another "It'll never fly" case of science?

Anyway, the topic is interesting enough. So, I'm writing an article about it.

So, are simply supposed to sit around and wait until science can answer every single question before we do anything?

Thing is, science isn't simply the best tool we have for understanding the world around us (including our own bodies), it is the ONLY tool we have for doing so. And while we probably never will know everything there is to know, and sometimes get led a little astray, science does at least tend to head us in that direction. Read this: http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm

This. If you actually waited until we could scientifically "prove" that something is safe for consumption before you ingested it then you would die of starvation.

Science doesn't "prove" anything, proof is the domain of mathematics alone. Science is used to disprove things and by eliminating possibilities arrive at the most plausible explanation based on models.

There currently is no scientific evidence that aspartame is dangerous, there is no model that would explain what it would be dangerous and therefore I choose to believe that it is not.

The idea that science ever proves things is a misunderstanding of what science is.

So, are simply supposed to sit around and wait until science can answer every single question before we do anything?

There currently is no scientific evidence that aspartame is dangerous, there is no model that would explain what it would be dangerous and therefore I choose to believe that it is not.

That's exactly my point. We never have waited for science before! The moment we observed stones falling we didn’t wait for science to explain the phenomenon. We simply sought more efficient ways to throw them farther away so we built catapults instead! And that more than two thousand years before the famous Newton's apple incident. We trusted our survival instincts, the mere observation of the phenomenon and Technology instead to make decisions.

STOP DRINKING SODA, it's the worst thing for you ever.

Based on what?

STOP DRINKING SODA, it's the worst thing for you ever.

Based on what?

The fact that it is not REAL FOOD, of course!!

Derr.

Define what you mean by "real food" for me please.

STOP DRINKING SODA, it's the worst thing for you ever.

Based on what?

The fact that it is not REAL FOOD, of course!!

Derr.

Side question so what does science say about Splenda? Is the a derivative of chlorine and sugar? I love Coke Zero and Splenda but have heard mixed reports.

Honestly don't kniw a thing about Splenda but knowing what kind if rigor it takes to get FDA approval I personally would trust in its safety until I saw convincing evidence that it was somehow unsafe.

Not knowing anything about it not sure what you mean about chlorine and sugar.

Your studies are well researched, but unfortunately it is only a very small piece of this very complex puzzle as it does not disprove previous studies of aspartame's danger. It's lab code is E951. It was discovered by accident in 1965 when James Schlatter, a chemist of G.D. Searle Company, was testing an anti-ulcer drug.
What is dangerous for some may only pose a minor risk to others.
There have been too many studies that show aspartame causes cancerous growths in laboratory mice,rats and humans. I don't really hear of anyone suggesting that aspartame is a foreign substance, but rather a laboratory experiment of natural ones (Fake Sugar with bleach) Not pure cane. Aspartame was approved for dry goods in 1981 and for carbonated beverages in 1983. It was originally approved for dry goods on July 26, 1974, but objections filed by neuroscience researcher Dr. John W. Olney and consumer attorney James Turner in August 1974, as well as investigations of G.D. Searle's research practices caused the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to put approval of aspartame on hold (December 5, 1974). In 1985, Monsanto purchased G.D. Searle and made Searle Pharmaceuticals and The NutraSweet Company separate subsidiaries.

Aspartame accounts for over 75 percent of the adverse reactions to food additives reported to the FDA. Many of these reactions are very serious, including seizures and death. there is cause for concern, don't take that risk. Better safe than sorry.
Anything related to Monsanto should give you a huge red flag!

That's exactly my point. We never have waited for science before! The moment we observed stones falling we didn’t wait for science to explain the phenomenon. We simply sought more efficient ways to throw them farther away so we built catapults instead! And that more than two thousand years before the famous Newton's apple incident. We trusted our survival instincts, the mere observation of the phenomenon and Technology instead to make decisions.

I take it you don't see the irony of using a computer that couldn't be built using craftsmanship alone to post this on a website which seeks to help people make food choices based on a scientific understanding of nutrition rather than intuition and personal observation.

ETA : and, for the record, we're still very far from "explaining" gravity.

Of course not! I love my computer, a pretty advanced piece of technology, and love science which helps me understand the world and the universe. I just don't fall (or rather, try not to) in these traps sustained in the name of science. In the particular case of artificial sweeteners and aspartame, I am wary of names such as Monsanto or Ajinomoto behind them.

BTW, despite that only craftsmanship was available at that time, this didn't stop Charles Babbage from making his Analytical Engine (thus establishing the foundations of programmable computers) one hundred years before Konrad Zuse created the first electro-mechanical programmable computer!

Okay. So what was the "trap" in my original post. What did I get wrong? What did I omit? What specific non-vague reason do we have to fear specifically the molecule aspartame?

..Trying to explain the world of the human body as a pure biochemical machine with the current knowledge of novel science of biochemistry and this is the flaw in the logic of this post! It's not your advanced skills, studies and understanding of biochemistry, it's that this is limited to the current advances in biochemistry itself!

I don't see why this thread should be pinned to the top of the board.

The irony in the posts about history repeating itself is that many times in history after great strides in logical reasoning and scientific study are made, we have a backlash into an anti-science and anti-logic movement, e.g. romanticism. I'm personally of the thought that this current movement of the anti-science brigade is a rehashing of periods in history like this.

As for the use of "BUT MONSANTO!!!!!111!" as a valid argument, it just isn't. Do I personally think they have some shady business practices and patents? Yes, but so does pretty much every company out there.

Also, genetic modification != genetic engineering.

The irony in the posts about history repeating itself is that many times in history after great strides in logical reasoning and scientific study are made, we have a backlash into an anti-science and anti-logic movement, e.g. romanticism. I'm personally of the thought that this current movement of the anti-science brigade is a rehashing of periods in history like this.

As for the use of "BUT MONSANTO!!!!!111!" as a valid argument, it just isn't. Do I personally think they have some shady business practices and patents? Yes, but so does pretty much every company out there.

Also, genetic modification != genetic engineering.

Ah, well... Monsanto is a completely different animal altogether. It's quite a different kettle of fish to have a company which was responsible for largely most of the world's toxins and poisons, and pesticides, now handling a large portion of its food supply, at least here in America. There's something frightening about a company whose employees must wear protective gear to apply their own product to the fields of food which, after harvest, we are expected to consume as if it were safe. I find it interesting that most of the executives of Monsanto are now senior-level officials of the FDA.

And the company that was responsible for making most of the arms for nazi Germany now makes elevators and escalators. Things change after time.