Why Aspartame Isn't Scary
Options
Replies
-
Nice post. Way too much fear mongering and too little sense goes into that anti aspartame agenda.0
-
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?
I have been following this story for a number of years and I am familiar with the basis of the footnoted objections and those which are cited in the comments section under the article. But you have sidestepped my two questions. I understand that you may not have the answer to those two questions but they need to be answered before anyone can make the bold statement that "Aspartame isn't Scary". I'm not advocating that anyone should think of it as "scary" but caution may well be in order.0 -
your post and follow up responses to each persons questions and comments are very much appreciated, OP. thank you. the amount of scientific illiteracy in the world, as well as the general predilection toward pseudoscience and confirmation bias is just so terrible.0
-
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.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.
Say you and your friends. G.D. Searle was similarly disposed to slander those who did not agree with them as "unscientific". I repeat: I have two questions. Why did the FDA's own toxicologist insist that aspartame was unsafe? Why are so many other neuroscientists and physicians convinced that it is harmful? There are a number of PubMed articles on its questionable safety. Here is just one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17684524
ETA: Why crucify medical reporters? How can Mercola be "discredited"? He, as far as I know, is not engaged in any research efforts of his own. He functions as a medical reporter who highlights news from the world of science. You may not agree with the findings of any individual researcher but you are obligated to provide your own scientific findings in refuting any individual research findings.2 -
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."
Apparently you missed my original post where I provided the names of multiple studies, all found on PubMed. I can give you only so much help, I can't spoon feed you. And I have a feeling, in your case, it wouldn't make any difference..1 -
Just for the fun of it, I wanted to see how many studies I could find that show a correlation between aspartame consumption and negative health effects. Here are just a few, all found on PubMed:
Aspartame administered in feed, beginning prenatally through life span, induces cancers of the liver and lung in male Swiss mice
Life-span exposure to low doses of aspartame beginning during prenatal life increases cancer effects in rats.
First experimental demonstration of the multipotential carcinogenic effects of aspartame administered in the feed to Sprague-Dawley rats.
Chronic Effect of Aspartame on Ionic Homeostasis and Monoamine Neurotransmitters in the Rat Brain
Neurobehavioral effects of aspartame consumption
Ameliorative effect of Pimpinella anisum oil on immunohistochemical and ultrastuctural changes of cerebellum of albino rats induced by aspartame
Rate of atherosclerosis progression in ApoE-/- mice long after discontinuation of cola beverage drinking
Cognitive and biochemical effects of monosodium glutamate and aspartame, administered individually and in combination in male albino mice
Aspartame-induced apoptosis in PC12 cells
Cytotoxic effect of aspartame (diet sweet) on the histological and genetic structures of female albino rats and their offspring
Shall I go on? Gosh, I love PubMEd! Incidentally, just enter the search word "aspartame" and see what comes up.
Here is my original post citing just a small fraction of the studies available. The source for all is PubMed, so no need to waste my time posting all the links, unless you're simply too stupid or lazy to use a simple search engine.1 -
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.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.
Say you and your friends. G.D. Searle was similarly disposed to slander those who did not agree with them as "unscientific". I repeat: I have two questions. Why did the FDA's own toxicologist insist that aspartame was unsafe? Why are so many other neuroscientists and physicians convinced that it is harmful? There are a number of PubMed articles on its questionable safety. Here is just one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17684524
ETA: Why crucify medical reporters? How can Mercola be "discredited"? He, as far as I know, is not engaged in any research efforts of his own. He functions as a medical reporter who highlights news from the world of science. You may not agree with the findings of any individual researcher but you are obligated to provide your own scientific findings in refuting any individual research findings.
Don't bother, the OP doesn't care. He will claim you didn't actually read that study (because he's the only one that reads studies), and that the studies that support his claim, are of course, some how better than any you found.2 -
Hi,
I've really enjoyed reading this thread, it's been good to actually read a rational, logical and scientific thread.... I personally don't drink a great deal of diet pop, not because of the artificial sweetener debate, but because I don't really like it much - but just to maybe put the cat among the pigeons, I tried using Stevia (you know, the natural sweetener) and it had a couple of nasty side effects on me - wind, bloating, belly ache and head aches, once I stopped using Stevia and went back to Canderel, Hermesetas and the likes, I was fine.... Also I can't eat much fruit because it has a similar effect on my digestive system.
Just because it's "natural" doesn't always make it the best, just saying xXx0 -
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.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.
Say you and your friends. G.D. Searle was similarly disposed to slander those who did not agree with them as "unscientific". I repeat: I have two questions. Why did the FDA's own toxicologist insist that aspartame was unsafe? Why are so many other neuroscientists and physicians convinced that it is harmful? There are a number of PubMed articles on its questionable safety. Here is just one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17684524
ETA: Why crucify medical reporters? How can Mercola be "discredited"? He, as far as I know, is not engaged in any research efforts of his own. He functions as a medical reporter who highlights news from the world of science. You may not agree with the findings of any individual researcher but you are obligated to provide your own scientific findings in refuting any individual research findings.
Don't bother, the OP doesn't care. He will claim you didn't actually read that study (because he's the only one that reads studies), and that the studies that support his claim, are of course, some how better than any you found.
^^. Confirmed for mad. Also the Soffriti studies contained numerous design and ethical flaws that would call results into question.3 -
By far the most *facepalm* article I've read on MFP.... Why is this flagged?0
-
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.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.
Say you and your friends. G.D. Searle was similarly disposed to slander those who did not agree with them as "unscientific". I repeat: I have two questions. Why did the FDA's own toxicologist insist that aspartame was unsafe? Why are so many other neuroscientists and physicians convinced that it is harmful? There are a number of PubMed articles on its questionable safety. Here is just one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17684524
ETA: Why crucify medical reporters? How can Mercola be "discredited"? He, as far as I know, is not engaged in any research efforts of his own. He functions as a medical reporter who highlights news from the world of science. You may not agree with the findings of any individual researcher but you are obligated to provide your own scientific findings in refuting any individual research findings.
Don't bother, the OP doesn't care. He will claim you didn't actually read that study (because he's the only one that reads studies), and that the studies that support his claim, are of course, some how better than any you found.
Wow, so you get to be snippy after one or two posts, but the OP has responded reasonably and patiently for 17 PAGES and he's the one displaying bias........riiiiiiiight. :noway:4 -
By far the most *facepalm* article I've read on MFP.... Why is this flagged?
What do you take issue with?0 -
By far the most *facepalm* article I've read on MFP.... Why is this flagged?
Because clearly, someone disagrees with you, but please enlighten us.....0 -
I'm probably going to take a break from this thread. Wasn't expecting to still be at it this long and I feel like I'm mostly just repeating myself. If I keep at it I will likely become more clipped more terse and more annoyed and just be accused of bullying or ignoring or bias.
Need a break at least.0 -
Thanks for the post! Obviously people who won't accept real scientific proof for the way things work in world, will still avoid aspartame. Did you also know that it is the MOST STUDIED SUBSTANCE ON THE PLANET? My crazy sister is convinced that it causes cancer and has my nieces and nephew paranoid about it. When the kids come to my house, they read the labels of my syrup, yogurt, pudding, etc to see if it's in there. Of course it is because I choose to buy products that are lower in calories. They say "no thank you" when I offer it to them. I think people who believe aspartame is a carcinogenic must also believe in the Easter Bunny, and Santa Claus...'cause they exist too, right? Good grief people!!0
-
I have been following this story for a number of years and I am familiar with the basis of the footnoted objections and those which are cited in the comments section under the article. But you have sidestepped my two questions. I understand that you may not have the answer to those two questions but they need to be answered before anyone can make the bold statement that "Aspartame isn't Scary". I'm not advocating that anyone should think of it as "scary" but caution may well be in order.
Caution may be in order for EVERTHING though. Too much of just about anything can be bad for certain people. There is no reason at all for aspartame to be due any more caution than anything else.
So far so good. Hundreds of millions of people, if not billions, have been eating the stuff for decades now to no ill effect. Longer than my entire life, worldwide, and so far no conclusive evidence of any bad health effects. Aspartame is just about the most exhaustively tested and studied food additive in existence. And still...no dice. Its been repeatedly examined, and repeatedly approved in more than 90 countries.
People will decry aspartame while stirring sugar into their coffee instead, causing an insulin spike. People will decry aspartame while waiting for the next tanning bed to open up. People will decry aspartame and then smoke a cigarette.
Honestly, the whole thing boggles the mind. People just LOVE food boogie men to feel smug and self righteous about avoiding, regardless of the facts.0 -
I'm probably going to take a break from this thread. Wasn't expecting to still be at it this long and I feel like I'm mostly just repeating myself. If I keep at it I will likely become more clipped more terse and more annoyed and just be accused of bullying or ignoring or bias.
Need a break at least.
:flowerforyou:
If you'd like I can gif bomb it until it rolls and then it won't keep popping up in your topics list.0 -
I haven't finished reading the thread, so maybe this has been covered, but it's not as simple as X food causing a migraine. It could be a trigger, in which case the offending food would only cause a headache if enough other triggers have stacked to push someone over their threshold. Think of your threshold like a 4 oz. cup, and triggers like an ounce of water each. If the cup overflows, a headache occurs. Every time you encounter a trigger, add an ounce of water. If aspartame is a trigger and nothing else has been encountered, a single ounce in a 4 oz. glass will do nothing. But let's say it's your period, you haven't slept, and are stressed to the max. Drink that same aspartame containing drink, and the cup overflows - headache. A really simplistic way of looking at it, but kind of explains the indirect cause and effect.To those saying that in their personal experience that aspartame or artificial sweeteners give them headaches.
I really cannot comment on that. Its your personal experience, it is anecdote. I'm not going to tell you you are wrong but at the same time without knowing a mechanism I'm not going to say you are right either. I see a lot of reasonable sounding people posting about this who seem to recognize that the correlation doesn't demonstrate causation so I don't really have much to add there.
The point of my post was to say why I think the preponderance of evidence shows that aspartame is safe for consumption in the general population and that claims that it is "toxic" or "carcinogenic" are false. That is all really that I mean and I get the sense that no one really strongly disagrees with that.
For example I would also say that there is no reason to consider peanuts not safe for consumption in the general population and no one calls peanuts "toxic" or "carcinogenic" and yet some people are so allergic to them that touching the oil residue from a peanut could be fatal.
I am not going to claim it is utterly impossible that the body could react to a molecule in an unusual and undefined way. Causes of migraines and headaches are very ill defined and perhaps for some people it is a trigger, I don't know.
I don't think that connection, if genuine, means that aspartame is somehow dangerous or unsafe though. People have migraine or headache triggers for any number of things and as of yet there are so many triggers and the causes so vague that nothing is really known about it.
Could aspartame cause headaches for some people? I don't see how really but that is just to say I don't see how (in the literal sense). That doesn't mean it doesn't, I just don't see what the mechanism would be and I haven't heard anyone or any study propose or substantiate a mechanism.
In these cases I'd agree with the doctor who responds toa patient that says "Doctor, it hurts when I do this" by saying "Then don't do that."
As to WHY, no one knows for sure yet. Certain amino acids are thought to have the ability to change levels of neurotransmitters in the brain, causing an alteration in transmission. For individuals with issues like migraine, seizures, etc., they would be more susceptible to these changes. Although this theory is being questioned, if it does ring true, then it's possible that in a sensitive individual the breakdown of aspartame could act as a trigger in some. That said, just the same as people with a peanut allergy or someone taking an MAOI that has to avoid tyramine, labeling the item "toxic" or "evil" because a special population has an issue with it seems over the top to me.
I also find it odd that people use the "aspartame gives me headaches so I don't trust it" argument, even though oranges, chocolate, and other "safe" and "natural" food items often do the same thing. FWIW, I am one who cannot drink aspartame containing drinks on heavy trigger days, but the same goes for orange juice and Parmesan cheese
1 -
I'm probably going to take a break from this thread. Wasn't expecting to still be at it this long and I feel like I'm mostly just repeating myself. If I keep at it I will likely become more clipped more terse and more annoyed and just be accused of bullying or ignoring or bias.
Need a break at least.
I don't blame you. You have been unbelievably patient and I have learned a crap-ton from your posts. While I think Monsanto corp is not exactly altruistic (duh! Corporation), I am glad to have the myths about aspartame debunked and learn a ton about science shizz too. Science wasn't my fav subject - cause math!!!
Anyway, here is some anecdotal evidence. My grandmother was an admin for someone at Monsanto when equal came out. She has been putting equal in her 10 cups of tea a day since the stuff was made available (yes, she really drinks that much tea. Not sure I've ever seen any water pass her lips). She is now 93 - in 30+ years, no lupus, ms, or cancer has kicked her butt. Go figure- she must be a medical miracle0 -
I have been following this story for a number of years and I am familiar with the basis of the footnoted objections and those which are cited in the comments section under the article. But you have sidestepped my two questions. I understand that you may not have the answer to those two questions but they need to be answered before anyone can make the bold statement that "Aspartame isn't Scary". I'm not advocating that anyone should think of it as "scary" but caution may well be in order.
So far so good. Hundreds of millions of people, if not billions, have been eating the stuff for decades now to no ill effect. Longer than my entire life, worldwide, and so far no conclusive evidence of any bad health effects. Aspartame is just about the most exhaustively tested and studied food additive in existence. And still...no dice. Its been repeatedly examined, and repeatedly approved in more than 90 countries.
Just because something has been approved doesn't mean that it is safe. Thalidomide was approved in Germany and other countries worldwide (resulting in the death and deformity of about 10,000 infants). It was only an alert pharmacologist at the FDA (Frances Oldham Kelsey M.D. Ph.D) that saved the U.S. from such a clear disaster. However, since Richardson-Merrell had already distributed millions of tablets to physicians in preparation for clinical trials, it is impossible to know how many were affected, since that possible use of the drug was never tracked.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 934 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions