Why Aspartame Isn't Scary

Lifetime consumption leads to greater incidence of cancer in rodent study:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1964906/

Leads to dysbiosis in the gut, and increased insulin resistance (might be a cause of the diabetes epidemic).
http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/content/meeting_abstract/27/1_MeetingAbstracts/224.7

While studies comparing drinking aspartame sweetened sodas versus sugar sweetened sodas indicate that aspartame helps control weight, it could also be said that it just proves that sugar drives weight gain. Sugary drinks are an ineffective control. Here, a study shows that aspartame increases appetite:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/003193849090126O

I could go on and on...

Hey Kevin. Not sure if you read the entire thread (I know its long so I'm not surprised if you haven't) but those studies have been discussed within the thread.

Do you have any further comments past what was said about those studies? We can start with the first one if you'd like, here was my analysis of that study. Do you have an explanation for their use of Sprague Dawley rats?


Soffreti et al 2006 DIDNT show a difference between the control group and the test group for tumors, all groups including the control developed tumors at around the rate one would expect because they were Sprague Dawley rats regardless of aspartame dosage. Then people read the paper and said "ZOMG tumors" and hence the internet blogs citing it for aspartame being a carcinogen.



Sprague Dawley rats just get tumors. I still think it very odd that if you are going to look to see if a compound causes tumors that you would chose to test it in a specific breed of animal known for developing spontaneous tumors.

I mean honest question but if you were going to invest the time to test whether or not a molecule was carcinogenic would you opt to test it in a breed of rat that spontaneously form tumors at a rate of about 45% or would you opt to test it in a breed of rat that does not form spontaneous tumors?

By the way that upper dosage is 5 grams per kilogram. To get 5g per kilogram of aspartame as a 70kg guy I'd have to ingest 350 grams which would be about 1,950 sodas in one dosage. These rats where given that dose EVERY DAY for their ENTIRE LIVES.

If you think that the 43% tumors in the max dosage group is significant vs the 35% control then you have to also contend that the 4mg per kg group has a significantly lower tumor yield at only 29%. 4mg per kg would be about 2 soda's worth in a dose. So if someone wanted to say that the max dosage gave a significant increase in tumors they would have to also accept that a normal dose (in terms of what we actually take in) actually prevents tumors.

Of course neither is the case, the results are within error and are non-significant. The rats have tumors because those rats get tumors.

I seriously don't understand how someone could read this study and think it evidence that aspsartame is a carcinogen. In my opinion people don't read the study, they just read blogs and posts that say "ZOMG Tumors" that cite the study. I have my doubts the authors of those blogs and posts read the study either.

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.

This is the study you chose to highlight yourself so I don't see why it is inappropriate for me to refer to the actual data within that study and point out that actually their results show no difference between the control group and the test group. That isn't "cherry picking" that was the primary figure of the entire study.

How did Monsanto/Searle/NutraSweet influence the result of this particular study exactly?

Honestly this sort of boogie-man corporations and chemicals are bad nature is good oversimplified fear mongering is exactly the kind of thing that annoys me about those who claim that aspartame is toxic.

Is Monsanto guilty of a lot of questionable policies especially with regard to patents...yeah sure. Does that make them instantly the machinator for every possible conspiracy theory relating to food out there? No.

If there is a study that shows conclusively the toxicity of aspartame then present it because to my eyes it doesn't exist.

I remember in the 70's when everyone switched from eating "evil" butter to eating "healthy" margarine. Turns out our bodies didn't know how to process those transfats and the natural product, butter, was actually better.

I just think consuming anything made in a lab is not something I want to do. Natural, unprocessed foods are probably healthier for the human body than fake *kitten*. So that is how I'm choosing to eat/live. To each their own. If the OP wants to guzzle diet soda, so be it.

I also believe that using fake sugar, which is hundreds of times more sweet than something found in nature, can screw around with your palate/desire for sweet stuff. Again, to each their own.

I don't recall ever saying I drink diet soda or trying to make a case for why everyone should drink diet soda, all I stated was why I believed the current body of scientific evidence did not support the notion that aspartame was toxic or carcinogenic. I also don't remember the scientific study claiming that margarine was "healthier" than butter. Can't be responsible for what the public decides is "good" or not based on marketing, television commercials and TV journalism.

Also how are you defining unprocessed food exactly. I mean butter is plenty processed, its not like butter just appears from nature...its made by humans via a process.

You are setting up a strawman and knocking it down and then erroneously equating it to the current discussion and acting like you have made some point. Are you seriously claiming aspartame is toxic because margarine isn't good for you? If not what exactly are you saying, that anything touched by humans= bad anything untouched by humans = good because that is pretty evidently untrue.

What food do we consume that has been untouched by humans and unprocessed? Can you name one thing?

You're my hero. Do vaccinations and GMOs next!

Oh doooon't get me started. I work at a non-profit infectious disease research institute that focuses on vaccine and drug development for the treatment of diseases of the developing world. I will flip my *kitten* with anti-vaccers. People who think aspartame is toxic I can at least get non-emotional with because I don't see it as actually leading to death. I mean if they avoid soda because of that no skin off my back really right, at worst I just feel they are being a bit silly.

Anti-GMO rubs me the wrong way for the same reason as the anti-vaccers, they blithely attack something that has become a pillar of our civilization because they don't understand it or think its scary somehow.

Also the aspartame thing has direct relevance to many of the posts I see on this forum. Vaccnines and GMOs are an issue for somewhere else I feel, would be out of place on a diet forum.

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....

Strong confirmation bias

Quite right. It's pretty human to seek out information that supports their own convictions. One has to consciously avoid doing it.

Exactly right, we are all biased to some degree and it can be difficult to recognize those biases. I feel though that at the point where you recognize that you have a bias it is your responsibility to ensure that you work hard to work against that. But if when you recognize you have a bias your response is instead to proclaim it with pride and wear it as a badge of honor then something is wrong.