Why Aspartame Isn't Scary

1. Since you are not an "expert", what you "think" isn't really relevant.

From "What is epigenetics?" The field of epigenetics is quickly growing and with it the understanding that BOTH THE ENVIRONMENT AND INDIVIDUAL LIFESTYLE CAN ALSO DIRECTLY INTERACT WITH THE GENOME TO INFLUENCE EPIGENETIC CHANGE. These changes may be reflected at various stages throughout a person’s life AND EVEN IN LATER GENERATIONS. For example, human epidemiological studies have provided evidence that prenatal and early postnatal environmental factors influence the adult risk of developing various chronic diseases and behavioral disorders.[1] Studies have shown that children born during the period of the Dutch famine from 1944-1945 have increased rates of coronary heart disease and obesity after maternal exposure to famine during early pregnancy compared to those not exposed to famine.

2. "...Aspartame is an ARTIFICIAL, non-saccharide sweetener used as a sugar substitute in some foods and beverages... Aspartame is a methyl ester of the aspartic acid/phenylalanine dipeptide. It was first sold under the brand name NutraSweet; It was first SYNTHESIZED in 1965 and the PATENT expired in 1992..."

Natural substances are not termed "artificial" nor are they patentable.

So are you an expert in epigenetics? If we can't take the other poster's opinions into account since they admit they are not, then obviously you are credentialed in this area, or we are free to ignore what you think too, right?

But I think what you are doing here is fear mongering based on two things that may or not be related. You are conflating the fact that epigenetics (hereditary changes without alterations in genome sequence) is real with the fact that aspartame is a "synthetic" chemical to jump to the conclusion that therefore aspartame is going to cause changes somewhere down the line.

What you don't have is any specific data to say this will happen, any specific hypothesis on why it might happen, any proposed mechanism on how it might happen.

Essentially, what it looks to me like you are doing, is taking two unrelated facts, and smushing them together and claiming the sky is about to fall. Maybe if you threw the word "quantum" in there, it would make it even scarier???

Didn't you read? No non-expert opinions allowed! You must have at least a PhD to play...

Are there people who may be negatively affected by aspartame? Sure, they may have allergic reactions (it's a protein after all.) People are also negatively affected by strawberries, peanuts, shellfish, eggs, and milk, but that doesn't make any of those foods bad for the rest of the population.

Exactly!

For every product on the market, someone some place will have a negative reaction. This doesn't mean the product is bad. I can't take aspirin because of stomach sensitivity but I won’t run around screaming the sky is falling. It simply means I can’t take freaking aspirin.

There is a broader question at hand. And that is, do we really want to do an experiment where we unnecessarily expose the populace to a host of synthetic chemicals that have only been part of the physical milieu for less than a dozen decades? (As just one "minor" illustration, even aspirin, in high doses, is linked to cerebral hemorrhage and other bleeding disorders.) There is no assurance that any of these chemicals are safe in the longer term--and NO ONE has any idea whether the COMBINATION of these synthetic chemicals is safe. As a further concern, epigenetics tells us that we may not only be endangering ourselves but future generations as well. Should we not question the unnecessary exposure to synthetic chemicals? Aspartame may or may not be "scary" but is it really necessary?

1. I'm not an expert on epigenetics, but from what I understand of it I don't think that's really how that works.

2. Most of these chemicals, including aspartame, are made up of components that we encounter all the time. There is zero reason to think that somehow because the chemicals were put together in a lab setting instead of synthesized in a plant that our bodies will somehow respond to them differently.

3. This thread is going to roll on the next post. I will not be commenting again because I just want this damn thing off my recent topics list.

1. Since you are not an "expert", what you "think" isn't really relevant.

From "What is epigenetics?" The field of epigenetics is quickly growing and with it the understanding that BOTH THE ENVIRONMENT AND INDIVIDUAL LIFESTYLE CAN ALSO DIRECTLY INTERACT WITH THE GENOME TO INFLUENCE EPIGENETIC CHANGE. These changes may be reflected at various stages throughout a person’s life AND EVEN IN LATER GENERATIONS. For example, human epidemiological studies have provided evidence that prenatal and early postnatal environmental factors influence the adult risk of developing various chronic diseases and behavioral disorders.[1] Studies have shown that children born during the period of the Dutch famine from 1944-1945 have increased rates of coronary heart disease and obesity after maternal exposure to famine during early pregnancy compared to those not exposed to famine.

2. "...Aspartame is an ARTIFICIAL, non-saccharide sweetener used as a sugar substitute in some foods and beverages... Aspartame is a methyl ester of the aspartic acid/phenylalanine dipeptide. It was first sold under the brand name NutraSweet; It was first SYNTHESIZED in 1965 and the PATENT expired in 1992..."

Natural substances are not termed "artificial" nor are they patentable.

You do realize the only thing that makes it artificial is the fact that they took the two amino acids and put them together, right? The amino acids themselves are natural, as they are created by bacteria. And plenty of natural substances are patented. Do you really think all these various cultivars of apples aren't patented by their creators? They are. Please stop talking if you don't know what you are actually talking about.

Keep eating all the poisons....fools.

Keep eating all the poisons....fools.

Like Conium maculatum? Otherwise known as hemlock. Totally natural, so it must be good, right?

Are there people who may be negatively affected by aspartame? Sure, they may have allergic reactions (it's a protein after all.) People are also negatively affected by strawberries, peanuts, shellfish, eggs, and milk, but that doesn't make any of those foods bad for the rest of the population.

Exactly!

For every product on the market, someone some place will have a negative reaction. This doesn't mean the product is bad. I can't take aspirin because of stomach sensitivity but I won’t run around screaming the sky is falling. It simply means I can’t take freaking aspirin.

There is a broader question at hand. And that is, do we really want to do an experiment where we unnecessarily expose the populace to a host of synthetic chemicals that have only been part of the physical milieu for less than a dozen decades? (As just one "minor" illustration, even aspirin, in high doses, is linked to cerebral hemorrhage and other bleeding disorders.) There is no assurance that any of these chemicals are safe in the longer term--and NO ONE has any idea whether the COMBINATION of these synthetic chemicals is safe. As a further concern, epigenetics tells us that we may not only be endangering ourselves but future generations as well. Should we not question the unnecessary exposure to synthetic chemicals? Aspartame may or may not be "scary" but is it really necessary?

1. I'm not an expert on epigenetics, but from what I understand of it I don't think that's really how that works.

2. Most of these chemicals, including aspartame, are made up of components that we encounter all the time. There is zero reason to think that somehow because the chemicals were put together in a lab setting instead of synthesized in a plant that our bodies will somehow respond to them differently.

3. This thread is going to roll on the next post. I will not be commenting again because I just want this damn thing off my recent topics list.

1. Since you are not an "expert", what you "think" isn't really relevant.

From "What is epigenetics?" The field of epigenetics is quickly growing and with it the understanding that BOTH THE ENVIRONMENT AND INDIVIDUAL LIFESTYLE CAN ALSO DIRECTLY INTERACT WITH THE GENOME TO INFLUENCE EPIGENETIC CHANGE. These changes may be reflected at various stages throughout a person’s life AND EVEN IN LATER GENERATIONS. For example, human epidemiological studies have provided evidence that prenatal and early postnatal environmental factors influence the adult risk of developing various chronic diseases and behavioral disorders.[1] Studies have shown that children born during the period of the Dutch famine from 1944-1945 have increased rates of coronary heart disease and obesity after maternal exposure to famine during early pregnancy compared to those not exposed to famine.

2. "...Aspartame is an ARTIFICIAL, non-saccharide sweetener used as a sugar substitute in some foods and beverages... Aspartame is a methyl ester of the aspartic acid/phenylalanine dipeptide. It was first sold under the brand name NutraSweet; It was first SYNTHESIZED in 1965 and the PATENT expired in 1992..."

Natural substances are not termed "artificial" nor are they patentable.

You do realize the only thing that makes it artificial is the fact that they took the two amino acids and put them together, right? The amino acids themselves are natural, as they are created by bacteria. And plenty of natural substances are patented. Do you really think all these various cultivars of apples aren't patented by their creators? They are. Please stop talking if you don't know what you are actually talking about.

The fact that they do not occur together in nature should give one pause for thought. And there is currently a lot of controversy over what should be patentable and what should not. I have no doubt that monied interests will make sure to patent whatever they can get away with patenting. But there are many ethical considerations.

Have you explained your expertise in epigenetics yet? Did I miss that bit?

I would assume that you are speaking to me? I would have to say that I don't go on these forums to answer questions about myself. However, since you seem to be looking for someone with expertise in epigenetics, here's one and what he has to say would appear to agree with what I have said : http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/jirtle-epigenetics.html

1. Since you are not an "expert", what you "think" isn't really relevant.

Are there people who may be negatively affected by aspartame? Sure, they may have allergic reactions (it's a protein after all.) People are also negatively affected by strawberries, peanuts, shellfish, eggs, and milk, but that doesn't make any of those foods bad for the rest of the population.

Exactly!

For every product on the market, someone some place will have a negative reaction. This doesn't mean the product is bad. I can't take aspirin because of stomach sensitivity but I won’t run around screaming the sky is falling. It simply means I can’t take freaking aspirin.

There is a broader question at hand. And that is, do we really want to do an experiment where we unnecessarily expose the populace to a host of synthetic chemicals that have only been part of the physical milieu for less than a dozen decades? (As just one "minor" illustration, even aspirin, in high doses, is linked to cerebral hemorrhage and other bleeding disorders.) There is no assurance that any of these chemicals are safe in the longer term--and NO ONE has any idea whether the COMBINATION of these synthetic chemicals is safe. As a further concern, epigenetics tells us that we may not only be endangering ourselves but future generations as well. Should we not question the unnecessary exposure to synthetic chemicals? Aspartame may or may not be "scary" but is it really necessary?

1. I'm not an expert on epigenetics, but from what I understand of it I don't think that's really how that works.

2. Most of these chemicals, including aspartame, are made up of components that we encounter all the time. There is zero reason to think that somehow because the chemicals were put together in a lab setting instead of synthesized in a plant that our bodies will somehow respond to them differently.

3. This thread is going to roll on the next post. I will not be commenting again because I just want this damn thing off my recent topics list.

1. Since you are not an "expert", what you "think" isn't really relevant.

From "What is epigenetics?" The field of epigenetics is quickly growing and with it the understanding that BOTH THE ENVIRONMENT AND INDIVIDUAL LIFESTYLE CAN ALSO DIRECTLY INTERACT WITH THE GENOME TO INFLUENCE EPIGENETIC CHANGE. These changes may be reflected at various stages throughout a person’s life AND EVEN IN LATER GENERATIONS. For example, human epidemiological studies have provided evidence that prenatal and early postnatal environmental factors influence the adult risk of developing various chronic diseases and behavioral disorders.[1] Studies have shown that children born during the period of the Dutch famine from 1944-1945 have increased rates of coronary heart disease and obesity after maternal exposure to famine during early pregnancy compared to those not exposed to famine.

2. "...Aspartame is an ARTIFICIAL, non-saccharide sweetener used as a sugar substitute in some foods and beverages... Aspartame is a methyl ester of the aspartic acid/phenylalanine dipeptide. It was first sold under the brand name NutraSweet; It was first SYNTHESIZED in 1965 and the PATENT expired in 1992..."

Natural substances are not termed "artificial" nor are they patentable.

You do realize the only thing that makes it artificial is the fact that they took the two amino acids and put them together, right? The amino acids themselves are natural, as they are created by bacteria. And plenty of natural substances are patented. Do you really think all these various cultivars of apples aren't patented by their creators? They are. Please stop talking if you don't know what you are actually talking about.

The fact that they do not occur together in nature should give one pause for thought. And there is currently a lot of controversy over what should be patentable and what should not. I have no doubt that monied interests will make sure to patent whatever they can get away with patenting. But there are many ethical considerations.

From the Rand Corporation website: "In this essay, the authors discuss the issues surrounding patenting products of nature. The central legal problem is how to distinguish a natural substance, for example, naturally occurring DNA, from a patentable invention. The authors suggest that the gbssubstantial transformation test (STT) used in customs law might be able to make this distinction. If adopted by Congress or the judiciary, the STT would maintain the patent law's integrity while resolving many of the economic and ETHICAL POLICY concerns surrounding current patent practices, they note." (emphasis mine)

Brave New World--and there are many cheerleaders for it but it doesn't make their cause a worthy or safe one.