The Aspartame Thread

Do what you're going to do and I'll do what I'm going to do. We're both going to die anyways.

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.

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.

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.

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/AspartameQandA

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.asp

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.

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 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.

"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. :-)

Well, since anecdotal evidence seems to be carrying the day, I'll provide mine. I drink diet soda, quite a bit of it actually, and have absolutely no headaches, nausea, tremors, panic attacks or any other discernible negative effects. In fact, I don't think I've ever experienced a migraine in my 41 years and if I get a regular headache every couple months, that's unusual. I must be super-human by some people's account.

My mom this weekend told me to avoid aspertame. I asked her why. "They" say that it's bad, she says. I asked her who were "they". She couldn't give me a definitive answer. I told her it was rubbish. Unfortunately, my mom isn't the only one who is susceptible to junk science and authoritative-sounding advice aimed at the easily swayed and confused.

I know that because I have a PhD in pharmacology, which requires an understanding of how drugs are approved for human use.

Oh snap! No worries. The anti-science forces will spin an argument to discredit your obvious expertise on the subject.

"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.

I know that because I have a PhD in pharmacology, which requires an understanding of how drugs are approved for human use. Food compounds would have to follow a similar process, including countless hours at the bench doing biochemical and cell work, countless hours testing the compounds in mice and/or rats, and then in "higher" mammals like dogs, cats, pigs, and/or primates. You have to have AT LEAST two species before you can move into human trials. It then has to go through multiple phases of human trials, in double blind, placebo controlled studies. The FDA reviews all the literature available on the compounds including any literature that contradicts the findings presented by the people "pushing" the drug. Most compounds are rejected by the FDA.

Of course, this is the internet. You're welcome to disbelieve my credentials.

Surely you don't believe that the FDA is somehow made up of super humans that are incapable of being corrupted.

It would only work in the short-term because science would eventually uncover the truth. It's been over 30 years.

It would only work in the short-term because science would eventually uncover the truth. It's been over 30 years.

This too

Surely you don't believe that the FDA is somehow made up of super humans that are incapable of being corrupted.

Super human? No. Humans with above-average intelligence and a higher than average level of education? Yes.

Some individuals within the FDA are undoubtably corrupt.

The entire FDA? I find that highly unlikely.

But then, I've never been prone toward conspiracy theories, and I am instead inclined to believe that most scientists, most analysts, and most people in the FDA are inclined to objectively look at the data and protect humans from dangerous substances.

The system is not perfect, but it's good and I have faith in it.

Well, since I'm an un-intelligent, uneducated, snaky, childish, rude conspiracy theorist...I'll let you scientists form a consensus without me. :laugh:

No seriously, it was fun but it's dinner time! I don't really care what you guys are drinking with yours but mine will be sans Aspartame. :drinker: