New Mexico and Aspartame

[sarongsong]

January 20, 2006 (http://www.arcticbeacon.com/20-Jan-2006.html)
"...If [the senate bill is] passed, no food containing any amount of the sweetener could be manufactured, sold or delivered in Mew Mexico, beginning July 1..."
Previous November 20, 2005 article (http://www.newstarget.com/013073.html)

[paulie jay]

Interesting. I wasn't aware that the aspartame boogeyman was real.

[randb]

I remember hearing that aspartame was a possible carcinogen.. I'm not sure though....

[Sammy]

January 20, 2006 (http://www.arcticbeacon.com/20-Jan-2006.html)
"...If [the senate bill is] passed, no food containing any amount of the sweetener could be manufactured, sold or delivered in Mew Mexico, beginning July 1..."
Previous November 20, 2005 article (http://www.newstarget.com/013073.html)

This is outrageous. It's a classic case of legeislators with NO scientific background getting captured by vocal cranks. Aspartame has even more cranks/kooks associated with it than the moon landing. The reference to Rumsfeld is typical of the "logic" used by these people.

Aspartame has been discussed at length on the BAAB. I will not reiterate all the links/quotes, except to say that there is NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OF ASPARTAME BEING ASSOCIATED WITH ANY ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS IN HUMANS WHO DO NOT HAVE THE METABOLIC DISORDER KNOWN AS PKU SYNDROME (folks who have it know it and avoid aspartame).

Aspartame is one opf the most thoroughly studied substances in history. The regulatory agencies of most major western nations have examined the relevant data multiple times and always approved aspartames's use as a food additive. The aspartame industry site at http://www.aspartame.org/aspartame_experts.html has links to reports from regulatory bodies, scientific organizations, associations for syndromes such as diabetes and alzheimers, and other experts. (Yes, it's an industry site, but there is no association between the industry and the bodies reporting their findings. And, to the best of my knowledge, there is no "cherry picking" which ignores findings which do show adverse effects.)

[sarongsong]

Issues with the cited article's Barcelona Study (http://presidiotex.com/barcelona/)? Compare it with FDA report on Searle's submission for NutraSweet approval 1977 (http://www.sweetpoison.com/articles/fda-report-on-searle1.html), rejected by the FDA in 1980 and subsequently over-ruled ([url=http://www.newswithviews.com/NWVexclusive/exclusive15.htm) by Rumsfeld-appointed FDA Commissioner Arthur Hull Hayes in 1981, despite
...No FDA Commissioner in the previous sixteen years had allowed aspartame on the market...
Correction: "...20 JANUARY 1981 (http://www.wnho.net/the_ecologist_aspartame_report.htm)
...Reagan's transition team, which includes Rumsfeld, nominates Dr Arthur Hull Hayes Jr to be the new FDA commissioner..."

[R.A.F.]

Personally, I prefer products made with Splenda...because it tastes better.

[Sammy]

Issues with the cited article's Barcelona Study (http://presidiotex.com/barcelona/)? Compare it with FDA report on Searle's submission for NutraSweet approval 1977 (http://www.sweetpoison.com/articles/fda-report-on-searle1.html), rejected by the FDA in 1980 and subsequently over-ruled (http://[url=http://www.newswithviews.com/NWVexclusive/exclusive15.htm) by Rumsfeld-appointed FDA Commissioner Arthur Hull Hayes in 1981, despite

We've been thru this ** before. The Advisory Panel changed it's position when new data, refuting one earlier study which raised concerns became available after it's initial report. The letter from the Panel's Chairman was posted on BABB during the previous discussion when you rauised the same issue. Only this time, you added in the (IMO) crank Rumsfeld issue. What does the name of the pserson appointing an FDA Commisioner have to do with a science-based decision?

If the original FDA decision was "cooked," why has EVERY regulatory agency which has reviewed aspartame found no adverse effects? Is there a global "fix?" Where is ANY data showing any connection between aspartame and ANY impact on human health?

The following organizations have issued opinions on the safety of aspartame:

Alzheimer’s Association (http://www.aspartame.org/aspartame_experts_science.html#aa)http://www.aspartame.org/images/aspartame_golddot.gif
American Academy of Family Physicians (http://www.aspartame.org/aspartame_experts_science.html#aafp)
American Cancer Society (http://www.aspartame.org/aspartame_experts_science.html#acs)
American Council on Science and Health (http://www.aspartame.org/aspartame_experts_science.html#acsh)
American Diabetes Association (http://www.aspartame.org/aspartame_experts_science.html#adiabetica)
American Dietetic Association (http://www.aspartame.org/aspartame_experts_science2.html#adietetica)
American Heart Association (http://www.aspartame.org/aspartame_experts_science2.html#aha)
Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America (http://www.aspartame.org/aspartame_experts_science2.html#aafa)
British Medical Journal (editorial) (http://www.aspartame.org/aspartame_experts_science2.html#bmj)
Canadian Diabetes Association (http://www.aspartame.org/aspartame_experts_science3.html#cda)
Diabetes U.K. (http://www.aspartame.org/aspartame_experts_science3.html#duk)
Lupus Foundation of America (http://www.aspartame.org/aspartame_experts_science3.html#lpa)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (http://www.aspartame.org/aspartame_experts_science4.html#mit)http://www.aspartame.org/images/aspartame_golddot.gifMayo Clinic (http://www.aspartame.org/aspartame_experts_science4.html#mc)http://www.aspartame.org/images/aspartame_golddot.gifMultiple Sclerosis Society of Canada (http://www.aspartame.org/aspartame_experts_science4.html#mssc)http://www.aspartame.org/images/aspartame_golddot.gifMultiple Sclerosis Foundation (http://www.aspartame.org/aspartame_experts_science5.html#msf)
National Cancer Institute (http://www.aspartame.org/aspartame_experts_science5.html#nci)
National Multiple Sclerosis Society (http://www.aspartame.org/aspartame_experts_science5.html#nmss)
National Parkinson Foundation (http://www.aspartame.org/aspartame_experts_science6.html#npf)
The Nemours Foundation (http://www.aspartame.org/aspartame_experts_science6.html#tnf)
U.K. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) (http://www.aspartame.org/aspartame_experts_science6.html#maff)
U.S. Consumer Information Center (http://www.aspartame.org/aspartame_experts_science6.html#uscic)
Brazilian Health Ministry
Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC)
Health Canada
French Food Safety Agency (AFSSA)
Scientific Committee on Food of the European Commission
U.K. Food Standards Agency

Did Rumsfeld get to them too?

[Monique]

We've been thru this ** before. The Advisory Panel changed it's position when new data, refuting one earlier study which raised concerns became available after it's initial report. The letter from the Panel's Chairman was posted on BABB during the previous discussion when you rauised the same issue. Only this time, you added in the (IMO) crank Rumsfeld issue. What does the name of the pserson appointing an FDA Commisioner have to do with a science-based decision?

If the original FDA decision was "cooked," why has EVERY regulatory agency which has reviewed aspartame found no adverse effects? Is there a global "fix?" Where is ANY data showing any connection between aspartame and ANY impact on human health?

The following organizations have issued opinions on the safety of aspartame:

Alzheimer’s Association (http://www.aspartame.org/aspartame_experts_science.html#aa)http://www.aspartame.org/images/aspartame_golddot.gif
American Academy of Family Physicians (http://www.aspartame.org/aspartame_experts_science.html#aafp)
American Cancer Society (http://www.aspartame.org/aspartame_experts_science.html#acs)
American Council on Science and Health (http://www.aspartame.org/aspartame_experts_science.html#acsh)
American Diabetes Association (http://www.aspartame.org/aspartame_experts_science.html#adiabetica)
American Dietetic Association (http://www.aspartame.org/aspartame_experts_science2.html#adietetica)
American Heart Association (http://www.aspartame.org/aspartame_experts_science2.html#aha)
Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America (http://www.aspartame.org/aspartame_experts_science2.html#aafa)
British Medical Journal (editorial) (http://www.aspartame.org/aspartame_experts_science2.html#bmj)
Canadian Diabetes Association (http://www.aspartame.org/aspartame_experts_science3.html#cda)
Diabetes U.K. (http://www.aspartame.org/aspartame_experts_science3.html#duk)
Lupus Foundation of America (http://www.aspartame.org/aspartame_experts_science3.html#lpa)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (http://www.aspartame.org/aspartame_experts_science4.html#mit)http://www.aspartame.org/images/aspartame_golddot.gifMayo Clinic (http://www.aspartame.org/aspartame_experts_science4.html#mc)http://www.aspartame.org/images/aspartame_golddot.gifMultiple Sclerosis Society of Canada (http://www.aspartame.org/aspartame_experts_science4.html#mssc)http://www.aspartame.org/images/aspartame_golddot.gifMultiple Sclerosis Foundation (http://www.aspartame.org/aspartame_experts_science5.html#msf)
National Cancer Institute (http://www.aspartame.org/aspartame_experts_science5.html#nci)
National Multiple Sclerosis Society (http://www.aspartame.org/aspartame_experts_science5.html#nmss)
National Parkinson Foundation (http://www.aspartame.org/aspartame_experts_science6.html#npf)
The Nemours Foundation (http://www.aspartame.org/aspartame_experts_science6.html#tnf)
U.K. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) (http://www.aspartame.org/aspartame_experts_science6.html#maff)
U.S. Consumer Information Center (http://www.aspartame.org/aspartame_experts_science6.html#uscic)
Brazilian Health Ministry
Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC)
Health Canada
French Food Safety Agency (AFSSA)
Scientific Committee on Food of the European Commission
U.K. Food Standards Agency

Did Rumsfeld get to them too?
Perhaps so... Perhaps thread belong in conspiracy theories not babbling

:rolleyes:

[JohnW]

This is going to put the woowoos in a very difficult position. Now aspartame is no longer a sinister plot by big business to foist evil chemicals on an unsuspecting populace. Now... the Gummint is trying to suppress it!

Any day now, we're going to start seeing "THEY don't want you to know the truth about the miracle natural substance, aspartame! It's the greatest health breakthrough since homeopathy! It cures rabies, scabies and colicky babies! For full details, send just $49.95 to..."

[Sammy]

Personally, I prefer products made with Splenda...because it tastes better.

Forgot to mention this in my previous post, but there is a growing crank community claiming that Splenda is also part of a vast conspiracy to poison the world. They haven't yet twigged to the fact that Rumsfeld is also part of the Splenda conspiracy...:lol:

[tofu]

Forgot to mention this in my previous post, but there is a growing crank community claiming that Splenda is also part of a vast conspiracy to poison the world.

Have you ever seen a commie use a packet of Splenda? (Dr. Strangelove reference)

[Grey]

Personally, I prefer products made with Splenda...because it tastes better.I still don't think any of the alternatives can beat plain old sugar. Yum!

[JohnW]

I still don't think any of the alternatives can beat plain old sugar. Yum!
And it's even better after fermentation!

[Doodler]

And it's even better after fermentation!


Rummmmmmmm!! :dance:

[jumbo]

Rummmmmmmm!!
As a disciple of grog i'd have to agree with that sentiment!

What the alledged problem with this stuff? I think its in a bunch of products here in the UK and there has been hardly a whiff of any stories about it.

[tlbs101]

"...If [the senate bill is] passed, no food containing any amount of the sweetener could be manufactured, sold or delivered in New Mexico, beginning July 1..."(state spelling typo; corrected)

Note that this is the legislative body that must also approve the funding and/or tax-breaks for Branson's new spaceport. God help us all.

I am trying to find out who the other co-sponsors are to these bills so I can complain, directly.

[mike alexander]

Specifically, the statute states, "A food shall be deemed to be adulterated, (1) if it contains any poisonous or deleterious substance which may render it injurious; (2) if it contains any added poisonous or added deleterious substance which is unsafe, and (3) if it consists in whole or in part of…decomposed substance, or if it is otherwise unfit."

Wow. (3), if enforced, will put a REAL damper on wine and cheese parties.

For reference, a typical diet soda contains 130 mg aspartame. Complete deeseterification will release 14 mg methanol/can. That's not very much methanol. Ten times that, consumed over a day, is still not very much methanol. From what I can find, wines contain 100 to 200 mg/liter of methanol. A liter of diet soda would contain about 40 mg of methanol equivalent.

Curiously, brandies can contain up to 0.35% (3500 mg/liter) methanol.

From the Barcelona reference:



Two groups of rats were selected. The first group NC (Normal-Chronic, N=5) received a daily oral gavage of 0.68 mmol per kg of rat weight (200 mg per kg) of a water suspension (2.5 mL/kg) of non-radioactive aspartame (Sigma). This treatment was continued for I 0 days. On day I 1, the rats were administered a gavage of 4.5 Mbq per kg of rat weight of labelled aspartame in 68 µmol of cold aspartame per kg, in the same volume of the standard gavage. The second group NA (Normal-Acute, N=l2) was given a single dose of 4.5 Mbq per kg of rat weight of labelled aspartame in 68 µmol of cold aspartame per kg of rat weight. Prior to the administration of the last (or only) dose, blood was extracted from the tail vein and used for the measurement of biochemical parameters using a Spotchem dry strip (panel I and 2) analysis system (Menarini, Milano, Italy).



The radioactive tracer was piggybacked on a dotal (single gavage)dose of 200mg/kg/day. Scaling up to a 60 kg human, that would be a daily dose of 12,000mg, or 12 g. And given as a single bolus, which would probably result in a faster and higher maximum blood concentration. Even the proverbial 12 pack a day drinker would be ingesting about 1/10 this total, and spread out over a much longer time.

[Hugh Jass]

As a disciple of grog i'd have to agree with that sentiment!
What the alleged problem with this stuff? I think its in a bunch of products here in the UK and there has been hardly a whiff of any stories about it.

Most of the fluff that surrounds it makes claims about it breaking down into arsenic or some random carcinogen. Most of the hysteria starts with hand waving and using chemical formulas someone pulled outta thin air or some other such place to prove some impossibility of chemistry.
I’ve almost used as a sig a quote by Dr. Dean Edell brought about by this whole thing.
“There is so much scientific untruth in it, it’s scary. Be careful, because others know how to manipulate you by this. Just because something is beyond your comprehension doesn’t mean it is scientific..”

[beskeptical]

I can't believe the aspartame nonsense is still making the rounds.

For Pete's sake. People use it because they want to cut down on calories and still eat/drink sweets. If you don't have a calorie issue, don't eat/drink the stuff. If you have a calorie issue, the risk is minuscule compared to the health effects of obesity.

The diet sodas I drink massive quantities of would be a few thousand extra calories a day if I drank sugared sodas. And chances are the phosphoric acid leaching the calcium out of my bones is much more hazardous than the aspartame. I prefer soda to water. Why should the New Mexico legislature care? That's rather more frightening than the aspartame if you ask me.

Your link on Donald Rumsfeld appointing the head of the FDA links to some unrelated junk on naming URLs, Sarong.

[Sammy]

In addition to the obesity issues BeSkep noted, there are also legions of diabetics (increasing as the population ages) who MUST avoid highly sugared products. I'm a Type II diabetic (typically late onset, non-insulin dependant) and control my glucose levels with diet and oral meds.

Artificial sweetners allow diabetics of all types to safely consume a much greater variety of foodstuffs than would be the case otherwise by preventing glucose "spikes" and helping reduce total calorie intake.

[Vaelroth]

Personally, I prefer products made with Splenda...because it tastes better.


Unfortunately, Splenda has aspartame in it.

[LurchGS]

it's just a conspiracy by C&H (conspiracies and hindrances) to keep sugar as the only means of sweetening things

[The Supreme Canuck]

What about honey?

[Van Rijn]

What about honey?

There are some slight differences in detail, but it is still glucose and fructose. There is little advantage over table sugar.

[beskeptical]

There are some slight differences in detail, but it is still glucose and fructose. There is little advantage over table sugar.I second that. It's a myth that sucrose is bad and glucose and fructose are good. All three are broken down into glucose before being absorbed into the blood stream.

[The Supreme Canuck]

There are some slight differences in detail, but it is still glucose and fructose. There is little advantage over table sugar.

I know. I was just being facetious. ;)

[paulie jay]

What about honey?
Weeeeellll, honey has a distinct flavour - I can't use it as a sweetener. I find it too overwhelming.

A few spoons of sugar a day for your coffee won't do you any harm providing you have one set of stairs to walk up! I think sugar has just the right taste for coffee - artificial sweetener always turns it into "mutant coffee" for me.

As for soda (or as we call them, "soft drinks". We don't have "hard drinks" though...), well that's a different league as far as sugar is concerned. Sugar-free every time for me, no risk!

[LurchGS]

Weeeeellll, honey has a distinct flavour - I can't use it as a sweetener. I find it too overwhelming.

A few spoons of sugar a day for your coffee won't do you any harm providing you have one set of stairs to walk up! I think sugar has just the right taste for coffee - artificial sweeteners always turns it into mutant coffee for me.

As for soda (or as we call them, "soft drinks". We don't have "hard drinks" though...), well that's a different league as far as sugar is concerned. Sugar-free every time for me, no risk!

heh - I gave up coffee years ago, and caffeine also...

Honey is great on bread, cereal, and spaghetti (I bet you didn't know his pastaness was a honey-fiend!)

As for hard drinks - before I gave THAT up, I didn't do those girlie drinks either. Good scotch. Period

[sarongsong]

...Your link on Donald Rumsfeld appointing the head of the FDA links to some unrelated junk on naming URLs, Sarong.Sorry, try these:
"...HISTORY OF BUSINESS (http://www.sweetpoison.com/articles/fda-report-on-searle3.html)
G. D. Searle & Co. ...Effective June 1, 1977, Donald H. Rumsfeld assumed duties as President and Chief Executive Officer..."
"...20 JANUARY 1981 (http://www.wnho.net/the_ecologist_aspartame_report.htm)
Ronald Reagan is sworn in as president of the US. Reagan's transition team, which includes Rumsfeld, nominates Dr Arthur Hull Hayes Jr to be the new FDA commissioner..."

[sarongsong]

Most of the fluff that surrounds it makes claims about it breaking down into arsenic or some random carcinogen...Not arsenic; formaldehyde:
...This (http://presidiotex.com/barcelona/) [Barceloma Study] conclusively proves that aspartame does indeed convert to formaldehyde in the bodies of aspartame consumers, and that many of the symptoms reported by victims of aspartame toxicity are indeed those associated with the poisonous and cumulative effects of formaldehyde...

[beskeptical]

...
Honey is great on bread, cereal, and spaghetti (I bet you didn't know his pastaness was a honey-fiend!)
...[grumble grumble] I hate sugar in my spaghetti sauce! Why do people put sugar in everything? I have to make sauce from scratch because all the commercial spaghetti sauces have a sweet taste. Spaghetti doesn't taste good sweetened. [/grumble grumble]

[beskeptical]

Sorry, try these:
"...HISTORY OF BUSINESS (http://www.sweetpoison.com/articles/fda-report-on-searle3.html)
G. D. Searle & Co. ...Effective June 1, 1977, Donald H. Rumsfeld assumed duties as President and Chief Executive Officer..."
"...20 JANUARY 1981 (http://www.wnho.net/the_ecologist_aspartame_report.htm)
Ronald Reagan is sworn in as president of the US. Reagan's transition team, which includes Rumsfeld, nominates Dr Arthur Hull Hayes Jr to be the new FDA commissioner..."
Sorry Sarong but I don't find those sites very credible.

According to the FDA (http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/fr020709.html), Nutrasweet is a Monsanto product, not a Searle product though perhaps the patent has changed hands. Anyone can write anything they want to the FDA about a product and it will be posted (http://google2.fda.gov/search?client=FDA&site=FDA&oe=&lr=&proxystylesheet=FDA&output=xml_no_dtd&getfields=*&q=nutrasweet&as=GO) on their site. The letters on aspartame are not based on anything more than someone claiming they got this or that from the stuff. If you drink a diet soda and die 5 minutes later it doesn't mean the soda killed you.

Anyway, I don't see any big conspiracy here to hide the bad news. Aspartame has been on the market long enough to know by now if we're all going to drop dead from it.

One thing not often considered when people start buying all this company is hiding the information stuff is that not all research is funded by corporations, by government, by the control groups. If people get a disease, there are often donations to disease foundations of which some is earmarked for research. The Heart Association, the Diabetes Association, the March of Dimes, and so on all fund research that is independent of drug companies and the government. And there is research in other countries as well.

When you read stuff like in the links you provided, go find legitimate research to confirm the claims. Just because someone believes something doesn't mean that is evidence for it.

[Taks]

20 JANUARY 1981 (http://www.wnho.net/the_ecologist_aspartame_report.htm)
Ronald Reagan is sworn in as president of the US. Reagan's transition team, which includes Rumsfeld, nominates Dr Arthur Hull Hayes Jr to be the new FDA commissioner..."uh, first of all, you need to reread that last statement. rumsfeld did not "appoint" the head of the FDA. reagan's transition team nominated dr. hayes, which means reagan appointed the guy. to the best of my knowledge, rumsfeld CANNOT appoint anyone to such a post now or then as he is not elected.

taks

[sarongsong]

...go find legitimate research to confirm the claims. Just because someone believes something doesn't mean that is evidence for it.Sorry, thought the Barcelona Study met even Sammy's criteria for scientific legitimacy. Yes, Monsanto later bought Searle's interest in aspartame/Nutrasweet. You are correct, Taks, reflected in Message #5's correction.

[beskeptical]

Sorry, thought the Barcelona Study met even Sammy's criteria for scientific legitimacy. Yes, Monsanto later bought Searle's interest in aspartame/Nutrasweet. You are correct, Taks, reflected in Message #5's correction.You mean in all those pages and pages of totally unsubstantiated claims I was supposed to find this?

13 MAY 1998
Independent scientists from the University of Barcelona publish a landmark study clearly showing that aspartame is transformed into formaldehyde in the bodies of living specimens (in this case rats), and that this formaldehyde spreads throughout the specimens' vital organs, including the liver, kidneys, eyes and brain. The results fly in the face of manufacturers' claims that aspartame does not break down into formaldehyde in the body, and bolster the claims of aspartame critics that many of the symptoms associated with aspartame toxicity are caused by the poisonous and cumulative effects of formaldehyde.And that isn't an original article. It is a claim that doesn't even list the citation where one may look at the study and see if one draws the same conclusion as the summary here. I had to search for the original article on the net.

I couldn't find the original article so I have to assume this copy of it (http://presidiotex.com/barcelona/) is correct. All it says is very large quantities "gavaged" into rats (which means they pumped it in via a tube), resulted in formaldehyde as one of the metabolites (meaning the chemical your body breaks something down into before excreting it).

Since the quantities would be expected to be minimal you have to take this line of inquiry further. You have to then look and see if NutraSweet consumption causes harm. And after that, you have to weigh risk vs benefit.

I'd rather have aspartame than sugar in my sodas given the risks and benefits currently known.

And on a scale of 1-10 with 10 being the hazards I am most worried about, the big aspartame scare is about as high as the big mercury in dental fillings and vaccines scare, less than 1.

If you're interested in corporate conspiracies, there are plenty of substantiated ones like tobacco and vehicle safety concerns that have been squelched over the years. There are increasing problems with drug companies exaggerating their product's effectiveness and conveniently not mentioning the less favorable research results. Drug companies hire experts to present drug company research as if the expert actually carried out the research.

With all the substantiated threats to our safety out there, why bother with the fake threats?

These web sites, in my opinion and no offense to you meant, are chock full of people claiming to know, without any research, legitimate evidence, or investigation of alternative causes, that they can tell [fill in the blank] caused their [fill in the blank]. It simply isn't evidence to believe.

And in addition to the time wasted pursuing potential causes of diseases for which there is no evidence, these folks are missing the chance to look for the causes for which there is evidence.

[sarongsong]

You mean in all those pages and pages of totally unsubstantiated claims I was supposed to find this?...No, no---the Barcelona link was covered in message #5, above.

[beskeptical]

No, no---the Barcelona link was covered in message #5, above.Still wasn't a good source for the Barcelona study information.

I looked randomly at a bunch of other stuff on that link and it was so far out of touch with reality, it's hard to even know where to start. Once you see that much grossly incorrect information, there's no reason to think anything on the site is the least bit credible.

[sarongsong]

Ha, ha---it's the same site you came up with.
Here's one brim-full with tech and spec, then:
European Journal of Oncology June 2005:
"Aspartame induces lymphomas and leukaemias in rats" (http://www.ramazzini.it/fondazione/docs/AspartameGEO2005.pdf) (.pdf)

[Sammy]

We better get those killer tomatoes banned also!

From multiple sources:


The methanol produced during the digestion of aspartame is identical to that which is provided in much larger amounts from many fruits, vegetables and their juices and is part of the normal diet. In fact, a glass of tomato juice provides about 6 times as much methanol as an equivalent amount of diet beverage sweetened with aspartame.

[swansont]

Ha, ha---it's the same site you came up with.
Here's one brim-full with tech and spec, then:
European Journal of Oncology June 2005:
"Aspartame induces lymphomas and leukaemias in rats" (http://www.ramazzini.it/fondazione/docs/AspartameGEO2005.pdf) (.pdf)

I'm not sure how well their "statistically significant" claim holds up, seeing as the statistical error in their sample is quite large — it's sqrt(N) — and usually at least half of the difference with the control group, and could be within that uncertainty when you look at the range of values they have for the control (high end is 18.4% vs the 12.4% average); they appear to have simply compiled other small-sample results. They may just be highlighting the dangers of interpreting results when a small-sample bias is present.

To use their numbers, the lowest incidence of lymphomas and leukemias in males happened for the 10X equivalent average daily intake, at 15%, (i.e. below the control group of 20.7%), which would make aspartame a health food, wouldn't it?

[beskeptical]

Ha, ha---it's the same site you came up with. You either don't understand the difference in the link I posted or I missed something on your link.

I had to hunt down a link to the Barcelona study that provided enough information toverify if a study was even done
verify if your citation's summary matched the researcher's conclusions
see how the study was carried out in order to assesshow reliable is the data
how big was the study
does the study apply to something broad or only to very limited circumstances
and so on, depending on what the subject matter is

That is what I mean by going to original sources. The source you posted was totally unreliable. They could have been completely fabricating the report. They could have been completely distorting the report.

As it turned out, your source was indeed distorting the research results. The study was done on mice with larger doses than humans would normally ingest. Tests on mice are usually preliminary with human studies needed to confirm that the results apply to humans. In addition, the study looked at a metabolite that aspartame was broken down to. It didn't look at how long that metabolite stuck around before being metabolized into smaller components, and it didn't look at the consequences in a human of that metabolite, in particular a dose related consequence. I can poison you with carbon dioxide if I fill a room with it but you have lots of it in your body and you aren't being poisoned.

The following citation of yours does give enough information to evaluate the study.
Here's one brim-full with tech and spec, then:
European Journal of Oncology June 2005:
"Aspartame induces lymphomas and leukaemias in rats" (http://www.ramazzini.it/fondazione/docs/AspartameGEO2005.pdf) (.pdf)So let's evaluate it.

First, I looked at the group doing the study. I can't tell if they're a radical group like the Discovery Institute here, but other than that it seems to be a legitimate research source.

Next I looked at the dose they used. They claim, that
Dietary surveys, performed among APM consumers, have shown that the average APM daily intake in the general population ranged from 2 to 3 mg/kg b.w. and was even more in children and pregnant women1. The Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) both in the US and in Europe is 50 and 40 mg/kg b.w., respectively1.
This site (http://www.aboutaspartame.com/metabolism.html) had information on about how much aspartame was in an 8 oz. soda, along with other information.
Aspartame (APM) is a widely used dipeptide sweetener (L-aspartyl-L-phenylalanine methyl ester). ...serving of beverage provided 600 mg APM, a dose equivalent to the amount provided by 36 oz of APM-sweetened diet beverage.600 mg in 36 oz equates to 200mg in an average 8 oz can of soda. Feel free to find any other source for that amount but I assume the amount of sweetener in a soda is about the same from brand to brand. A small adult female would be 50kg (using easy math numbers) so that amounts to 4mg/kg of aspartame per soda. That correlates with your citation's report that the general population averaged 2-3mg/kg/day of aspartame though there was no mention of lifetime amounts.

The study you cited then went on to look at the maximum amount of aspartame considered safe, which according to them was 50mg/kg/day in the USA. That equates to 12 cans of soda.

So the study found that the equivalent of 12 cans of diet soda every day for your entire life span reached the threshold for slightly more lymphomas and leukemias than had you not had those sodas. And, only in females. In males it took the equivalent of [/b]1200 cans a day[/b] and even then the result was iffy. From this the authors called for URGENT re-evaluation of aspartame.

This tells me I might want to not be encouraging young girls to drink diet soda. But I hold that position anyway because I think it's psychologically harmful to imply to little girls they need to diet. OTOH, if a child is obese or a diabetic, then the use of aspartame is by far less risk given this data, than sugared sodas. Ideally, you don't want kids drinking much soda anyway. Juice and milk would be preferred.

It also tells me it's a good idea to give this information to pregnant women and let them know avoiding diet drinks was suggested but if they had a hard time complying not to worry or feel guilty about it.

And, if you have a bad liver or drink a lot of alcohol, then aspartame could add a bit of injury on top of whatever else you have. If I were counseling a recovering alcoholic, diet sodas would be an excellent choice, even with liver problems because the pathway to break down alcohol gets larger in alcoholics (oversimplified explanation) and it is the same pathway that breaks down methanol. So an alcoholic that quits drinking clears those aspartame metabolites out of their system faster than usual.



As for the Barcelona study, while I was looking at stuff for the lymphoma/leukemia connection I came across two studies that looked at aspartame metabolites in humans and found the hazards to be negligible.

From my link above on the dose in a can of soda, it was actually about metabolites of aspartame in humans:
Stegink LD, Filer LJ Jr, Bell EF, Ziegler EE, Tephly TR.

Effect of repeated ingestion of aspartame-sweetened beverage on plasma amino acid, blood methanol, and blood formate concentrations in normal adults. Metabolism. 1989 Apr;38(4):357-63.

It has been suggested that excessive use of APM might elevate plasma aspartate, phenylalanine, and/or methanol concentrations to levels that are potentially harmful. Six normal young adults ingested eight successive servings of unsweetened and APM-sweetened beverage at one-hour intervals in a balanced crossover design.....ingestion of APM-sweetened beverage significantly increased plasma phenylalanine levels 1.41 to 2.35 mumol/dL above baseline 30 minutes after ingestion. Plasma phenylalanine values reached a steady state after administration of four to five servings and did not exceed normal postprandial values at any time. Blood methanol and formate concentrations remained within normal limits. The data indicate ready metabolism of APM when administered at levels that may be ingested by normal individuals who are heavy users of diet beverages. And,this one: (http://www.aspartame.net/media/scilib/abst36.html)
J Toxicol Environ Health. 1981 Feb;7(2):281-90.

Blood methanol concentrations in normal adult subjects administered abuse doses of aspartame.

Stegink LD, Brummel MC, McMartin K, Martin-Amat G, Filer LJ Jr, Baker GL, Tephly TR.

Blood methanol concentrations were measured in 30 normal adult subjects administered aspartame, a dipeptide methyl ester. The doses studied included the 99th percentile of projected daily ingestion (34 mg/kg body weight) and three doses considered to be in the abuse range (100, 150, and 200 mg/kg body weight). Methanol concentrations were below the level of detection (0.4 mg/dl) in the blood of the 12 normal subjects who ingested aspartame at 34 mg/kg. They were significantly elevated (p less than or equal to 0 .001) after ingestion of each abuse dose, with the mean peak blood methanol concentrations and the areas under the blood methanol concentration-time curve increasing in proportion to dose. Mean (+/- SD) peak blood methanol concentrations were 1.27 +/- 0.48 mg/dl at the 100 mg/kg dose, 2.14 +/- 0.35 mg/dl at the 150 mg/kg dose, and 2.58 +/- 0.78 mg/dl at the 200 mg/kg dose. Blood methanol concentrations returned to predosing levels by 8 h after administration of the 100 mg/kg dose. Methanol was still detected in the blood 8 h after the subjects had ingested aspartame at 150 or 200 mg/kg. Blood formate analyses were carried out in the 6 subjects who ingested aspartame at 200 mg/kg, since recent studies indicate that the toxic effects of methanol are due to formate accumulation. No significant increase in blood formate concentrations over predosing concentrations was noted. No changes were noted in any of the blood chemistry profile parameters measured 24 h after aspartame ingestion, compared to values noted before administration. Similarly, no differences were noted in ophthalmologic examinations carried out before and after aspartame loading.




Again, if you're looking for an issue, I spent a lot of time educating my son's grade school and the local PTSA about the caffeine they hadn't noticed in the soda offered at the school carnival and picnic, and that was certainly more important than aspartame hazards.

[beskeptical]

I'm not sure how well their "statistically significant" claim holds up, seeing as the statistical error in their sample is quite large — ...This is an additionally good point. The numbers almost didn't make sense. See the issues I addressed as well.