The Aspartame Thread
Options
Replies
-
Do what you're going to do and I'll do what I'm going to do. We're both going to die anyways.
0 -
please for give me but i just stumbled on this thread and didnt read every single post but i got the gist of it.
i read several pieces on the internet over the last few year some seemed very scientific some not so much. I cant say i put faith in anything i read good or bad but I myself dont react well to any of those sugar replacements.
I suffer from IBS. Its part of another condition but I swaer its exasperated by aspertame and some other non sugar sweetners.
Often in the supermarkets i look for less sugar no sugar added foods and drinks only to find it only means fake sugar added and often tastes so sickly sweet as to be very off-putting . I have no objection to good old sugar. its a natural substance and taken now and again in moderation i dont think does most people a lot of harm. I just wish the food industry would stick to sugar but use less of it.0 -
I am going to admit upfront that I haven't yet read all 5 pages of posts but one jumped out at me - from the person who could link her illness symptoms to aspartame. I have fibromyalgia (11 years) and I find the same correlation. Once I gave up the artificial stuff my symptoms decreased so much that I got my life back. With that said, I have friends who practically take their aspartame through an IV and they are fine. So, maybe it is individual - maybe I was just really invested in feeling well. When I want a soda -- and there are days that nothing tastes better than an ice cold coke - I drink it, log it and move on. I don't eat artificial stuff of any kind and it works for me.0
-
This reminds me of the "pink slime" fiasco.0
-
This-
"It was written to clarify a very common misunderstanding. There isn't much money in sciences. The people who make the big bucks are the business guys who become CEOs of pharmaceutical industries, or the guys good at politics and administration who become department chairs, deans, etc..."
-is exactly the problem with Aspartame. The person who secured its approval was DONALD RUMSFELD. Not a scientist but basically a political insider. Now what could his motivations for seeing this product to the market have possibly been? I'm sure he had the benefit of all mankind in mind.
How do you know it was Donald Rumsfield? Because you read it on the internet somewhere? You might be right... I don't really know... but this seems like more propaganda to me.
Even if it was Rumsfield, why does it matter? He alone does not have the power to persuade the FDA. Really, he doesn't.
I'm not naive. I know the FDA is a political animal. One need only look at how long it took to approve "plan B" to know that. But it's still driven by science and a wealth of science at that. It is incredibly difficult to get something past the FDA. Some things do slip past all the safety checks. We know about them because they're big news. Eventually, the truth comes out, but aspartame has been in use for a long time and more importantly, it's in common use. Lots and lots of people use it. We're not talking Vioxx here, which was used by only a small population of the US. We're talking a huge majority of people in the US.
If aspartame had a major impact on human health, we'd have seen it by now no matter how powerful Donald Rumsfield is or isn't.
Minor effects (like increasing appetite) would be harder to miss and so are a possibility.0 -
and once again - http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/are-artificial-sweeteners-safe/
Good stuff in those 60+ comments, especially the last one.# Harriet Hallon 02 Jan 2012 at 12:11 pm
@RichMurray,
I read chapter 12. It was painful. Monte’s book is not a reliable source. He fails to understand some of the basic principles of science, for instance “the poison is in the dose,” “correlation doesn’t prove causation,” and “people are not giant rodents.” He engages in misrepresentation and distortion of published data, and speculation based on correlations. He doesn’t balance his cherry-picked studies with studies that contradict his beliefs. He presents no evidence that aspartame has any significant clinical adverse effects in humans at typical levels of ingestion. Nuff said.0 -
This-
"It was written to clarify a very common misunderstanding. There isn't much money in sciences. The people who make the big bucks are the business guys who become CEOs of pharmaceutical industries, or the guys good at politics and administration who become department chairs, deans, etc..."
-is exactly the problem with Aspartame. The person who secured its approval was DONALD RUMSFELD. Not a scientist but basically a political insider. Now what could his motivations for seeing this product to the market have possibly been? I'm sure he had the benefit of all mankind in mind.
How do you know it was Donald Rumsfield? Because you read it on the internet somewhere? You might be right... I don't really know... but this seems like more propaganda to me.
Even if it was Rumsfield, why does it matter? He alone does not have the power to persuade the FDA. Really, he doesn't.
I'm not naive. I know the FDA is a political animal. One need only look at how long it took to approve "plan B" to know that. But it's still driven by science and a wealth of science at that. It is incredibly difficult to get something past the FDA. Some things do slip past all the safety checks. We know about them because they're big news. Eventually, the truth comes out, but aspartame has been in use for a long time and more importantly, it's in common use. Lots and lots of people use it. We're not talking Vioxx here, which was used by only a small population of the US. We're talking a huge majority of people in the US.
If aspartame had a major impact on human health, we'd have seen it by now no matter how powerful Donald Rumsfield is or isn't.
Minor effects (like increasing appetite) would be harder to miss and so are a possibility.
He was the CEO, President and then Chairman of Searle. The approval of Aspartame basically saved Searle as a company and facilitated its sale to Monsanto. It is estimated that Rumsfeld profited to the tune of 12 million USD from this sale.
He had at least 12 million reasons to see to it that Aspartame was approved.0 -
not got time to read the whole thread, but I'm very intolerant to aspartame. It does bad things to my digestive system (or you could say my digestive system simply refuses to have anything to do with it and shows it the door LOL) but yeah I avoid that stuff like the plague.
Also it tastes, to me, like dirty dishwater and not all that sweet, and I can taste it in most products that contain it (which is useful so I can avoid consuming it by accident)
there are very few soft drinks that don't contain it so my choice is basically sugary soft drinks or none at all, and I go for none at all unless I'm so caffeine deprived that I have to drink pepsi for the caffeine (though I'd prefer not to consume all that refined sugar!)
It annoys me when people totally dismiss the health issues with aspartame, they may not affect everyone but they are real and some people don't realise what's causing them. (and yes I know that can happen with intolerances and allergies to natural things as well) I do wish they wouldn't put it in so many different things though, or at least produce aspartame free diet soft drinks, just like you can get gluten free, dairy free etc.0 -
It did in rats in the original studies... which is why it should have been tested more before approval. My OBGYN specifically told me to avoid while pregnant...
Stop making things up.
Aspartame may well turn out to be the most thoroughly
studied food additive ever approved by the US Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) in terms oftotal numbers of
studies conducted before approval.
http://www.ajcn.org/content/46/1/204.full.pdf+html
http://web.archive.org/web/20090212130028/http://cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/AspartameQandA0 -
He was the CEO, President and then Chairman of Searle. The approval of Aspartame basically saved Searle as a company and facilitated its sale to Monsanto. It is estimated that Rumsfeld profited to the tune of 12 million USD from this sale.
He had at least 12 million reasons to see to it that Aspartame was approved.
Ad hominem0 -
Here's an excerpt from the Wikipedia entry on aspertame. You can scoff, but it is rife with citations backing up what it states:
"Safety and approval controversies
Main article: Aspartame controversy
Aspartame has been found to be safe for human consumption by more than ninety countries worldwide,[49][50] with FDA officials describing aspartame as "one of the most thoroughly tested and studied food additives the agency has ever approved" and its safety as "clear cut",[51] but has been the subject of several controversies, hoaxes[3] and health scares.[52]
Problems with safety tests were found following the initial approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1974. Approval was rescinded the following year and after reviews and additional testing, final approval was granted in 1981. Allegations of conflicts of interest marred the FDA's approval of aspartame; question the quality of the initial research supporting its safety;[53][54][55] The U.S. Government Accountability Office conducted reviews of the actions of involved officials in 1986 and the approval process in 1987; neither the allegations of conflict of interest nor problems in the final approval process were substantiated.[53][56]
A widely circulated email hoax cited aspartame as the cause of numerous diseases.[57] The Center for Disease Control investigated and was unable to find any significant epidemiological associations to serious risk or harm.[58]
The weight of existing scientific evidence indicates that aspartame is safe at current levels of consumption as a non-nutritive sweetener.[6] Reviews conducted by regulatory agencies decades after aspartame was first approved have supported its continued availability.[59]"
And Snopes debunks a bunch of stuff here:
http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/aspartame.asp0 -
For those who are saying Aspartame hasn't been tested, have you ever been to PubMed? It's an NIH sponsored website with access to thousands of scientific journals. Enter aspartame or artificial sweeteners in the search box. Aspartame has been tested. Splenda has been tested. There's a wealth of knowledge out there backed by scientific study. You choose to ignore it, but the FDA doesn't.
I understand that some may choose not to drink or eat aspartame because for them the slight possibility of a risk is too great. I respect that. I really do.
What I don't respect is those who propagate the myths that say aspartame is more dangerous than it really is, especially those who claim it causes birth defects, brain tumors, Alzheimer's disease, and so on. The true risks of aspartame are that it MIGHT increase appetite, MIGHT increase insulin secretion, and MIGHT be linked to headaches/migraines and/or behavioral issues in those already prone toward depression, anxiety, etc...
^^^^This! What she said. 0 -
He was the CEO, President and then Chairman of Searle. The approval of Aspartame basically saved Searle as a company and facilitated its sale to Monsanto. It is estimated that Rumsfeld profited to the tune of 12 million USD from this sale.
He had at least 12 million reasons to see to it that Aspartame was approved.
Ad hominem
I find monetary gain to be a valid possible motive of the approval of Aspartame. It's a valid argument in a court of law...so.0 -
Wow, Mary. I also was a Diet Dr. Pepper addict for years (maybe I still am). I have also taken it on trips with me. I never had the side effect that you did. Sounds terrible.
My wife started doing my fitness pal about 6 weeks ago or so and I just started copying her on most things. As we both saw some significant weight loss, (10lbs for her and 19 for me) we were motivated to ask questions about things like aspertame. (She was a diet coke drinker). She has cut out Diet Coke cold turkey and I have been allowing myself zero to two-a-day, usually one. So far we have been free of side effects other than my cravings.
I have heard that our bodies think aspertame is sugar and therefore releases insulin causing our blood sugar to spike and then fall. Blood sugar moves like that will cause us to crave food and therefore sabotage our disciplined eating habits.
Don't know if this is right but, for this and other reasons mentioned by others, namely, how does our body handle non-fuel substances, we have decided to minimize or eliminate aspertame. We both went from no water to 8-10 cups a day and just feel like our bodies are better off.0 -
He was the CEO, President and then Chairman of Searle. The approval of Aspartame basically saved Searle as a company and facilitated its sale to Monsanto. It is estimated that Rumsfeld profited to the tune of 12 million USD from this sale.
He had at least 12 million reasons to see to it that Aspartame was approved.
Ad hominem
I find monetary gain to be a valid possible motive of the approval of Aspartame. It's a valid argument in a court of law...so.
More proof that you don't understand how science works.
The burden of evidence in science is much, much higher than it is in a court of law.
"In 2002, having spent more than three years in one residence for the first time in my life, I got called for jury duty. I show up on time, ready to serve. When we get to the voir dire, the lawyer says to me, “I see you’re an astrophysicist. What’s that?” I answer, “Astrophysics is the laws of physics, applied to the universe—the Big Bang, black holes, that sort of thing.” Then he asks, “What do you teach at Princeton?” and I say, “I teach a class on the evaluation of evidence and the relative unreliability of eyewitness testimony.” Five minutes later, I’m on the street." ~ Neil DeGrasse Tyson0 -
He was the CEO, President and then Chairman of Searle. The approval of Aspartame basically saved Searle as a company and facilitated its sale to Monsanto. It is estimated that Rumsfeld profited to the tune of 12 million USD from this sale.
He had at least 12 million reasons to see to it that Aspartame was approved.
Okay. If what you say is true, then he had reason to push Aspartame.
Guess what though? There are millions of compounds that are NOT approved by the FDA every single year. Many of those compounds are being pushed by people with as much money (or more) and as much prestige and power (or more) as Rumsfield every had.
FDA does not approve something just because a powerful man wants it to be approved. They just don't.
The health risks posed by aspartame are relatively minor, if they exist at all. I can believe things like it causes migraines in some susceptible people. I can believe that it might aggravate a condition like Fibromyalgia, or MS, or something like that. That does not make the compound poison to the general population and that does not mean the FDA is wrong for having approved it.0 -
I have heard that our bodies think aspertame is sugar and therefore releases insulin causing our blood sugar to spike and then fall. Blood sugar moves like that will cause us to crave food and therefore sabotage our disciplined eating habits.
There actually IS some evidence to this effect. There's also evidence against it. It's hard to say at this stage of the game whether aspartame increases insulin in the blood or not.
However, just as a fun counter-hypothesis, IF aspartame increases insulin release, it could be because the body thinks its a protein. Protein causes insulin release. Guess what aspartame is? Aspartame is two amino acids bonded together. Guess what protein is? Amino acids bonded together.
That's not really relevant to the argument. As I say, that's just for fun.0 -
He was the CEO, President and then Chairman of Searle. The approval of Aspartame basically saved Searle as a company and facilitated its sale to Monsanto. It is estimated that Rumsfeld profited to the tune of 12 million USD from this sale.
He had at least 12 million reasons to see to it that Aspartame was approved.
Okay. If what you say is true, then he had reason to push Aspartame.
Guess what though? There are millions of compounds that are NOT approved by the FDA every single year. Many of those compounds are being pushed by people with as much money (or more) and as much prestige and power (or more) as Rumsfield every had.
FDA does not approve something just because a powerful man wants it to be approved. They just don't.
The health risks posed by aspartame are relatively minor, if they exist at all. I can believe things like it causes migraines in some susceptible people. I can believe that it might aggravate a condition like Fibromyalgia, or MS, or something like that. That does not make the compound poison to the general population and that does not mean the FDA is wrong for having approved it.
"FDA does not approve something just because a powerful man wants it to be approved. They just don't."
You know that because?
All we're doing at this point is throwing around opinions.0 -
"In 2002, having spent more than three years in one residence for the first time in my life, I got called for jury duty. I show up on time, ready to serve. When we get to the voir dire, the lawyer says to me, “I see you’re an astrophysicist. What’s that?” I answer, “Astrophysics is the laws of physics, applied to the universe—the Big Bang, black holes, that sort of thing.” Then he asks, “What do you teach at Princeton?” and I say, “I teach a class on the evaluation of evidence and the relative unreliability of eyewitness testimony.” Five minutes later, I’m on the street." ~ Neil DeGrasse Tyson
LOL! I hold a PhD in Psych and my wife is a physician. I NEVER get selected for a jury when called for jury duty. :-)0 -
He was the CEO, President and then Chairman of Searle. The approval of Aspartame basically saved Searle as a company and facilitated its sale to Monsanto. It is estimated that Rumsfeld profited to the tune of 12 million USD from this sale.
He had at least 12 million reasons to see to it that Aspartame was approved.
Ad hominem
I find monetary gain to be a valid possible motive of the approval of Aspartame. It's a valid argument in a court of law...so.
More proof that you don't understand how science works.
The burden of evidence in science is much, much higher than it is in a court of law.
"In 2002, having spent more than three years in one residence for the first time in my life, I got called for jury duty. I show up on time, ready to serve. When we get to the voir dire, the lawyer says to me, “I see you’re an astrophysicist. What’s that?” I answer, “Astrophysics is the laws of physics, applied to the universe—the Big Bang, black holes, that sort of thing.” Then he asks, “What do you teach at Princeton?” and I say, “I teach a class on the evaluation of evidence and the relative unreliability of eyewitness testimony.” Five minutes later, I’m on the street." ~ Neil DeGrasse Tyson
I wasn't talking about the science in that particular comment so what is your point with the insults on my knowledge "how science works"?
I was addressing the issue of Rumsfeld's motivation for seeing that Aspartame was approved. He himself has little if anything to do with the scientific process. He is not a scientist, which I stated before. He had no scientific motives in regards to Aspartame and I doubt very highly if he himself actually understood its full implications at the time.
His handling of Aspartame was just about as scientific as Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction" but I digress.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 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
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions