Why Aspartame Isn't Scary
Options
Replies
-
I agree with you! My mom used Sweet N Low (which HAS been proved to cause cancer), but she lived to 89!
It was linked to bladder cancer in rats when saccharin (sweet 'n low) was combined with cyclamates (an artificial sweetener banned in the US). Even then it apparently was determined that the cancer developed due to some kind of mechanism that is unique to rats and not people.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/artificial-sweeteners
Scroll down to #3.
Dunno if this helps.0 -
I agree with you! My mom used Sweet N Low (which HAS been proved to cause cancer), but she lived to 89!
It was linked to bladder cancer in rats when saccharin (sweet 'n low) was combined with cyclamates (an artificial sweetener banned in the US). Even then it apparently was determined that the cancer developed due to some kind of mechanism that is unique to rats and not people.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/artificial-sweeteners
Scroll down to #3.
Dunno if this helps.
I do wonder how paranoid one must be to believe that a product that is still on the market and readily availabe has been "proven" to cause cancer.
Honestly people there isn't a conspiracy to try to kill you. If something is shown to be carcinogenic or toxic it is not going to be put into food because A) if you believe that the FDA is actually interested in protecting health then obviously they would disallow that and
if you believe that the FDA doesn't care and everything is driven by market forces then something like that would be pretty easy for competitors to market against. Makers of other artificial sweetners would sing from the rooftops how this other sweetener causes cancer. The reason that doesn't happen is because it doesn't cause cancer. 0 -
I agree with you! My mom used Sweet N Low (which HAS been proved to cause cancer), but she lived to 89!
It was linked to bladder cancer in rats when saccharin (sweet 'n low) was combined with cyclamates (an artificial sweetener banned in the US). Even then it apparently was determined that the cancer developed due to some kind of mechanism that is unique to rats and not people.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/artificial-sweeteners
Scroll down to #3.
Dunno if this helps.
I do wonder how paranoid one must be to believe that a product that is still on the market and readily availabe has been "proven" to cause cancer.
Honestly people there isn't a conspiracy to try to kill you. If something is shown to be carcinogenic or toxic it is not going to be put into food because A) if you believe that the FDA is actually interested in protecting health then obviously they would disallow that and if you believe that the FDA doesn't care and everything is driven by market forces then something like that would be pretty easy for competitors to market against. Makers of other artificial sweetners would sing from the rooftops how this other sweetener causes cancer. The reason that doesn't happen is because it doesn't cause cancer.
I don't believe there is a conspiracy either. But there was a warning label on pink packets for decades about cancer and rats. I posted about this earlier, but that warning label was a conversation piece when waiting for our meals at restaurants many times. It's very recent history that the warning label was removed.
That there is a widespread belief in the US that pink packets (or artificial sweetener in general) are proved to cause cancer, it is hardly a mystery why that is.
If the surgeon generals warning was removed from cigarettes because of the discovery of some causal attribution error about cigarettes and cancer, it also wouldn't be that big of a mystery why most people would nevertheless be of the belief that cigarettes have been proven to cause cancer.
I use pink packets multiple times a day, it's my favorite sweetener, I understand why the warning was removed, and I have enjoyed your thread. But I don't think the belief that artificial sweeteners cause cancer is entirely irrational given that one had a huge warning label stamped on it, and I don't agree that the FDA wouldn't continue to let something that has been shown to cause cancer to be put on the food market anyway because... did they not do exactly that with sweet n low with the caveat of stamping a warning label on it. i.e. consume at your own risk? That it isn't believed to be carcinogenic NOW has no bearing on what was believed about it THEN, does it? And the residual effects of that warning label seem what one might expect from a population that had been staring at a warning label on their artificial sweetener for decades.0 -
I agree with you! My mom used Sweet N Low (which HAS been proved to cause cancer), but she lived to 89!
It was linked to bladder cancer in rats when saccharin (sweet 'n low) was combined with cyclamates (an artificial sweetener banned in the US). Even then it apparently was determined that the cancer developed due to some kind of mechanism that is unique to rats and not people.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/artificial-sweeteners
Scroll down to #3.
Dunno if this helps.
I do wonder how paranoid one must be to believe that a product that is still on the market and readily availabe has been "proven" to cause cancer.
Honestly people there isn't a conspiracy to try to kill you. If something is shown to be carcinogenic or toxic it is not going to be put into food because A) if you believe that the FDA is actually interested in protecting health then obviously they would disallow that and if you believe that the FDA doesn't care and everything is driven by market forces then something like that would be pretty easy for competitors to market against. Makers of other artificial sweetners would sing from the rooftops how this other sweetener causes cancer. The reason that doesn't happen is because it doesn't cause cancer.
I don't believe there is a conspiracy either. But there was a warning label on pink packets for decades about cancer and rats. I posted about this earlier, but that warning label was a conversation piece when waiting for our meals at restaurants many times. It's very recent history that the warning label was removed.
That there is a widespread belief in the US that pink packets (or artificial sweetener in general) are proved to cause cancer, it is hardly a mystery why that is.
If the surgeon generals warning was removed from cigarettes because of the discovery of some causal attribution error about cigarettes and cancer, it also wouldn't be that big of a mystery why most people would nevertheless be of the belief that cigarettes have been proven to cause cancer.
I use pink packets multiple times a day, it's my favorite sweetener, I understand why the warning was removed, and I have enjoyed your thread. But I don't think the belief that artificial sweeteners cause cancer is entirely irrational given that one had a huge warning label stamped on it, and I don't agree that the FDA wouldn't continue to let something that has been shown to cause cancer to be put on the food market anyway because... did they not do exactly that with sweet n low with the caveat of stamping a warning label on it. i.e. consume at your own risk? That it isn't believed to be carcinogenic NOW has no bearing on what was believed about it THEN, does it? And the residual effects of that warning label seem what one might expect from a population that had been staring at a warning label on their artificial sweetener for decades.
I think you make some valid points but just to clarify what I said was do you think the FDA would allow something to remain on the market that had been PROVEN to cause cancer. Saccharine was never proven to cause cancer. There was one study, that was discussed previously in this thread, where in combination with another molecule in high dose some rats got cancer. That study was not particularly convincing but in a move that I consider to be a mistake (and the FDA later decided was a mistake) on the basis of that possibility they applied a warning label despite there being insufficient evidence. When later time and time again other studies showed no effect they eventually removed the label.
As for cigarettes they aren't food and therefore are not regulated in the same way. There is also a big difference between an identifiable product (like a cigarette) and the inclusion of an ingredient within foods (as saccharine is used in many products). The analogy would be would the FDA allow the inclusion of nicotine in food products. Do you think they would?
I will agree with you though based on that former label I can see why people are hesitant or unsure about it. That said there is a big BIG difference between being hesitant and unsure (which I understand) and loudly proclaiming in a public forum that saccharine "has been proven to cause cancer" which I do not understand. I do think that is fairly paranoid and not very well thought out.0 -
I think you make some valid points but just to clarify what I said was do you think the FDA would allow something to remain on the market that had been PROVEN to cause cancer. Saccharine was never proven to cause cancer. There was one study, that was discussed previously in this thread, where in combination with another molecule in high dose some rats got cancer. That study was not particularly convincing but in a move that I consider to be a mistake (and the FDA later decided was a mistake) on the basis of that possibility they applied a warning label despite there being insufficient evidence. When later time and time again other studies showed no effect they eventually removed the label.
As for cigarettes they aren't food and therefore are not regulated in the same way. There is also a big difference between an identifiable product (like a cigarette) and the inclusion of an ingredient within foods (as saccharine is used in many products). The analogy would be would the FDA allow the inclusion of nicotine in food products. Do you think they would?
The point of my analogy was just to illustrate the idea of the public needing an adjustment period. I used cigarettes as being analogous insofar as they have a warning label and it's part of the collective conscience now that they 'cause cancer.' This was once also so (though to a much smaller degree) for saccharin, rightly or wrongly, so a person not fully adjusted to the new (for him) revelation that saccharin does not cause cancer, I think that is understandable. Just as it would be understandable if the public doesn't adjust right away to any revelation that cigarettes don't cause cancer. (I think suspicion at that revelation would be ubiquitous and understandably so)
The differences in how these products are regulated I don't feel detracts from the point of my analogy, and you recognized the greater point I was making later.I will agree with you though based on that former label I can see why people are hesitant or unsure about it. That said there is a big BIG difference between being hesitant and unsure (which I understand) and loudly proclaiming in a public forum that saccharine "has been proven to cause cancer" which I do not understand. I do think that is fairly paranoid and not very well thought out.
Perhaps not well thought-out, people toss around 'proven' 'proof' and 'proved' pretty carelessly, when what they probably mean is something a lot less strong than that, like "science supports blah blah". The poster who said saccharin was proved to cause cancer, I didn't suspect them to be pushing paranoia or conspiracies, but rather was repeating what they probably learned from a warning stamp on a pink packet. Evidently they didn't take that knowledge too seriously given their accompanying personal anecdote about their mother's longevity that appeared to the poster to defy the science.
And that was what I really getting at, that posters like that one are more likely a remnant of the warning label era, rather than a paranoid conspiracy theorist. I do think it's kind of ironic though that they essentially rejected what they thought was the science in favor of personal anecdote. 0 -
I think you make some valid points but just to clarify what I said was do you think the FDA would allow something to remain on the market that had been PROVEN to cause cancer. Saccharine was never proven to cause cancer. There was one study, that was discussed previously in this thread, where in combination with another molecule in high dose some rats got cancer. That study was not particularly convincing but in a move that I consider to be a mistake (and the FDA later decided was a mistake) on the basis of that possibility they applied a warning label despite there being insufficient evidence. When later time and time again other studies showed no effect they eventually removed the label.
As for cigarettes they aren't food and therefore are not regulated in the same way. There is also a big difference between an identifiable product (like a cigarette) and the inclusion of an ingredient within foods (as saccharine is used in many products). The analogy would be would the FDA allow the inclusion of nicotine in food products. Do you think they would?
The point of my analogy was just to illustrate the idea of the public needing an adjustment period. I used cigarettes as being analogous insofar as they have a warning label and it's part of the collective conscience now that they 'cause cancer.' This was once also so (though to a much smaller degree) for saccharin, rightly or wrongly, so a person not fully adjusted to the new (for him) revelation that saccharin does not cause cancer, I think that is understandable. Just as it would be understandable if the public doesn't adjust right away to any revelation that cigarettes don't cause cancer. (I think suspicion at that revelation would be ubiquitous and understandably so)
The differences in how these products are regulated I don't feel detracts from the point of my analogy, and you recognized the greater point I was making later.I will agree with you though based on that former label I can see why people are hesitant or unsure about it. That said there is a big BIG difference between being hesitant and unsure (which I understand) and loudly proclaiming in a public forum that saccharine "has been proven to cause cancer" which I do not understand. I do think that is fairly paranoid and not very well thought out.
Perhaps not well thought-out, people toss around 'proven' 'proof' and 'proved' pretty carelessly, when what they probably mean is something a lot less strong than that, like "science supports blah blah". The poster who said saccharin was proved to cause cancer, I didn't suspect them to be pushing paranoia or conspiracies, but rather was repeating what they probably learned from a warning stamp on a pink packet. Evidently they didn't take that knowledge too seriously given their accompanying personal anecdote about their mother's longevity that appeared to the poster to defy the science.
And that was what I really getting at, that posters like that one are more likely a remnant of the warning label era, rather than a paranoid conspiracy theorist. I do think it's kind of ironic though that they essentially rejected what they thought was the science in favor of personal anecdote.
Yeah okay, I get what you are saying and yeah I think you are right.0 -
For some people, artificial sweeteners like aspartame trigger migraines. I know first hand.0
-
For some people, artificial sweeteners like aspartame trigger migraines. I know first hand.
Science doesn't believe aspartame is actually causing that migrane:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3657889
The incidence rate of headache after aspartame (35 percent) was not significantly different from that after placebo (45 percent) (P less than 0.50). No serious reactions were observed, and the incidence of symptoms other than headache following aspartame was also equivalent to that after placebo. No treatment-related effects were detected in vital signs, blood pressure, or plasma concentrations of cortisol, insulin, glucagon, histamine, epinephrine, or norepinephrine. Most of the subjects were well educated and overweight and had a family or personal history of allergic reactions. The subjects who had headaches had lower plasma concentrations of norepinephrine (P less than 0.0002) and epinephrine (P less than 0.02) just before the development of headache. We conclude that in this population, aspartame is no more likely to produce headache than placebo.0 -
Hmmm, although I am one of the great defenders of aspartame in threads like these - I do think migraines are so individual and so varied in cause.
If people say they get migraines from aspartame, I beleive them.
No problem there.
My only problem is when people then say it is bad for everyone.
Mainecasey did not do that.1 -
Hmmm, although I am one of the great defenders of aspartame in threads like these - I do think migraines are so individual and so varied in cause.
If people say they get migraines from aspartame, I beleive them.
No problem there.
My only problem is when people then say it is bad for everyone.
Mainecasey did not do that.
I am with you on this one. A nocebo effect still creates a negative reaction in people, so to them, it is real. However, that can be a self-fulfilling prophesy in a way so is a bit of 'iffy line to follow for everything.0 -
I don't have much opinion on the migraine thing because I don't really consider it relevent. My issue, again, is with people taking their personal experience of getting headaches or what they read on the internet somewhere as proof that aspartame is somehow toxic when it is not. Aspartame triggering migraines is not a problem with aspartame anymore than cheese causing migraines is a problem with cheese. If you experience pain when doing X then don't do X, but that doesn't mean that X is bad for everyone nor should you decry X publically as being somehow bad in general terms.
I am not saying mainecasey did that, she just stated it caused migraines for her to which my response is to shrug basically. I don't mean to sound harsh but I just don't find that particularly informative. Its like if I came on a thread about how peanuts are not toxic and stated that if I ate peanuts I'd die because I am allergic. Well...okay, but does that then make peanuts toxic? No, not really...it just means that I personally should not injest peanuts.
Do I think aspartame could cause migraines? I don't know, sure maybe I have no clue to be honest. When people say it does I tend to just let that go because I see no reason to argue that point as whether or not it does really has no relevance.0 -
I do fully agree with the line in bold obviously. Can I say that aspartame gives me migraines? No, because I'm pretty damn sure I've had plenty of things out the with it in it and have had no problems. Now will I have crystal light again? Nope, not because I believe the aspartame gave me headache per se but more because "I had a bunch of headaches last time I tried crystal light".I don't have much opinion on the migraine thing because I don't really consider it relevent. My issue, again, is with people taking their personal experience of getting headaches or what they read on the internet somewhere as proof that aspartame is somehow toxic when it is not. Aspartame triggering migraines is not a problem with aspartame anymore than cheese causing migraines is a problem with cheese. If you experience pain when doing X then don't do X, but that doesn't mean that X is bad for everyone nor should you decry X publically as being somehow bad in general terms.
I am not saying mainecasey did that, she just stated it caused migraines for her to which my response is to shrug basically. I don't mean to sound harsh but I just don't find that particularly informative. Its like if I came on a thread about how peanuts are not toxic and stated that if I ate peanuts I'd die because I am allergic. Well...okay, but does that then make peanuts toxic? No, not really...it just means that I personally should not injest peanuts.
Do I think aspartame could cause migraines? I don't know, sure maybe I have no clue to be honest. When people say it does I tend to just let that go because I see no reason to argue that point as whether or not it does really has no relevance.
Yeah and that makes you sane. Whenever one encounters a situation like that they have to weigh the desire to find the actual cause of a problem against the sheer amount of time and effort required to even attempt to do so with no guarantee of success. 99% of the time people, including myself, are just going to shrug and decide its easier just to avoid that thing that they don't need anyways and move on. Honestly I wouldn't expect otherwise. Where my eyes start to roll is when they turn that into an internet crusade demanding that everyone recognize how that thing is bad in general.0 -
Wow ... this thread is getting pretty long ... but I'll add my 2 cents ...
I have never been a "dieter" or a "diet" drinker but about 10 years ago I decided I drank way too much Dr. Pepper and, because I have hypo-glycemia and it messed with my blood sugar, I switched to Diet Dr. Pepper. Within 2 months my memory had gotten so bad that not only could I not remember a conversation the day before (or even earlier that day) I couldn't remember even seeing the person. I have always had an amazing memory (remembering entire conversations that happened the year before). I didn't attribute it to the soda and honestly had no idea what was happening. Then I got an email warning of the possible side effects of aspertame. I don't always buy into all of the hype but since that made sense to me because one of the possible effects was memory loss I decided to stop drinking the Diet Dr. Pepper. I noticed an improvement immediately.
Although it may not effect everyone the same, there have been countless individuals who have had severe and even dibilitating side effects of aspertame. To tell others that it is safe seems a bit irrisponsible and negligent in my opinion. Just because you don't notice ill effects from something does not mean that it isn't causing your body harm or that those side effects won't surface later in life.1 -
aspartame will kill you
There are over 92 different health side effects associated with aspartame consumption. It seems surreal, but true.1 -
side effects
Eye
blindness in one or both eyes
decreased vision and/or other eye problems such as: blurring, bright flashes, squiggly lines, tunnel vision, decreased night vision
pain in one or both eyes
decreased tears
trouble with contact lenses
bulging eyes
Ear
tinnitus - ringing or buzzing sound
severe intolerance of noise
marked hearing impairment
Neurologic
epileptic seizures
headaches, migraines and (some severe)
dizziness, unsteadiness, both
confusion, memory loss, both
severe drowsiness and sleepiness
paresthesia or numbness of the limbs
severe slurring of speech
severe hyperactivity and restless legs
atypical facial pain
severe tremors
Psychological/Psychiatric
severe depression
irritability
aggression
anxiety
personality changes
insomnia
phobias
Chest
palpitations, tachycardia
shortness of breath
recent high blood pressure
Gastrointestinal
nausea
diarrhea, sometimes with blood in stools
abdominal pain
pain when swallowing
Skin and Allergies
itching without a rash
lip and mouth reactions
hives
aggravated respiratory allergies such as asthma
Endocrine and Metabolic
loss of control of diabetes
menstrual changes
marked thinning or loss of hair
marked weight loss
gradual weight gain
aggravated low blood sugar (hypoglycemia)
severe PMS2 -
more side effects
Other
frequency of voiding and burning during urination
excessive thirst, fluid retention, leg swelling, and bloating
increased susceptibility to infection
Additional Symptoms of Aspartame Toxicity include the most critical symptoms of all
death
irreversible brain damage
birth defects, including mental retardation
peptic ulcers
aspartame addiction and increased craving for sweets
hyperactivity in children
severe depression
aggressive behavior
suicidal tendencies
Aspartame may trigger, mimic, or cause the following illnesses:
Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
Epstein-Barr
Post-Polio Syndrome
Lyme Disease
Grave’s Disease
Meniere’s Disease
Alzheimer’s Disease
ALS
Epilepsy
Multiple Sclerosis (MS)
EMS
Hypothyroidism
Mercury sensitivity from Amalgam fillings
Fibromyalgia
Lupus
non-Hodgkins
Lymphoma
Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD)
These are not allergies or sensitivities, but diseases and disease syndromes. Aspartame poisoning is commonly misdiagnosed because aspartame symptoms mock textbook ‘disease’ symptoms, such as Grave’s Disease.
Aspartame changes the ratio of amino acids in the blood, blocking or lowering the levels of serotonin, tyrosine, dopamine, norepinephrine, and adrenaline. Therefore, it is typical that aspartame symptoms cannot be detected in lab tests and on x-rays. Textbook disorders and diseases may actually be a toxic load as a result of aspartame poisoning.
Ever gone to the doctor with real, physical symptoms, but he/she can’t find the cause? Well, it’s probably your diet, your environment, or both.2 -
Begin with detoxifying your body of all residual chemical toxins from aspartame's chemical make up of phenylalanine, aspartic acid and methanol and their toxic by-products, and see if any adverse health symptoms remain. Try the Aspartame Detoxification Program, and within 30 days your symptoms should disappear.
Steps:
Remove all sugar-free products with aspartame from your diet.
Learn to 'read' your body. Begin recording any health changes.
Get a hair analysis.
Be happy with yourself.
Detoxify.
Restore depleted nutrients.
Exercise and get plenty of rest.
Eat 75% raw foods at every meal.
Drink water, water, water.
Get control of your life.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 399 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 981 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions