StanUpshaw
04-01-2010, 04:22 PM
"Artificial sweetener is so bad for you! And I cannot understand why people keep using it. There's all these signs that it's not good for you."
-HTG 4/01/2010
I'm sorry to break this to you HTG, but the internet has lied to you. The overwhelming weight of scientific research shows no evidence that aspartame is a dangerous substance.
The FDA (http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodIngredientsPackaging/ucm094211.htm) states:
Q Do low-calorie sweeteners cause adverse reactions?
A No. Food safety experts generally agree there is no convincing evidence of a cause and effect relationship between these sweeteners and negative health effects in humans. The FDA has monitored consumer complaints of possible adverse reactions for more than 15 years.
For example, in carefully controlled clinical studies, aspartame has not been shown to cause adverse or allergic reactions. However, persons with a rare hereditary disease known as phenylketonuria (PKU) must control their intake of phenylalanine from all sources, including aspartame. Although aspartame contains only a small amount of phenylalanine, labels of aspartame-containing foods and beverages must include a statement advising phenylketonurics of the presence of phenylalanine.
Individuals who have concerns about possible adverse effects from food additives or other substances should contact their physicians.
The European Food Safety Authority (http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/anstopics/topic/aspartame.htm) advises:
Aspartame
Aspartame is a low-calorie, intense sweetener. It is a white, odourless powder, approximately 200 times sweeter than sugar.
Aspartame is used in a number of foodstuffs such as drinks, desserts, sweets, dairy, chewing gums, energy-reduces and weight control products and as a table-top sweetener throughout the world. The sweetener has been authorised for many years in many countries following thorough safety assessments.
EFSA's role and activities
The sweetener and its breakdown products have been a matter of extensive investigation for more than 20 years including experimental animal studies, clinical research, intake and epidemiological studies and post-marketing surveillance. Aspartame was found to be safe for human consumption, a conclusion which was reconfirmed in the review carried out by the Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) in 2002.
In 2007 the European Ramazzini Foundation in Bologna, Italy, published findings of a new study on the carcinogenicity of aspartame in rats. EFSA’s ANS Panel adopted an opinion on this study in January 2009. The ANS Panel subsequently updated its opinion in March 2009 taking into consideration data submitted by the Ramazzini Foundation in February 2009. The Panel concluded that on the basis of all the evidence currently available, including the ERF study published in 2007, there is no indication of any genotoxic or carcinogenic potential of aspartame and no reason to revise the previously established Acceptable Daily Intake for aspartame of 40 mg/kg body weight. An earlier opinion , following the first study on aspartame by the European Ramazzini Foundation, was adopted by the former AFC Panel in 2006.
Initiative in cooperation with the Advisory Forum
Even though aspartame has been authorised for many years in many countries following thorough safety assessments, a degree of public concern about the safety of aspartame has continued. EFSA, together with its Advisory Forum made up of representatives of the risk assessment bodies in the EU Member States, is now working to address this public concern.
EFSA adopted an opinion in 2006 reconfirming the safety of aspartame. This work is not being undertaken because of new concerns about the current safety assessments. However, both EFSA and its Advisory Forum recognize that public concern continues despite the risk assessments that have been undertaken. The aim of this initiative is to ensure that every effort has been made to address these concerns.
In April 2009 EFSA held a meeting of national experts with relevant scientific knowledge in relation to aspartame, nominated by their Member States. They looked at all the published literature and other data made available, with the aim of addressing in a comprehensive manner the public concern that remained. Experts also took into consideration additional evidence and literature that EFSA had gathered through a call for data issued in 2008.
Following the national experts meeting in Porto held in November 2009 and further work since then, the report of the national experts has now been completed. At the February Advisory Forum meeting it was agreed to publish the draft report and hold a consultation workshop on its contents prior to the Advisory Forum considering the report at its May meeting. The consultation workshop will be held in Frankfurt on 23rd April.
Our own Dr. Steve (http://www.ronfez.net/forums/showthread.php?t=83245) had this to say:
We did a long piece on apartame paranoia on Weird Medicine one night...since I am TERRIBLE at indexing topics on the show, I'll have to search to find which one it was.
Aspartame is toxic, if taken in large enough doses, and the "Acceptable Daily Intake" (ADI) is adjusted to be around 10% of the toxic dose (if I remember correctly). The ADI of aspartame is 50 mg/kg of body weight per day (22 cans of a diet soft drink for a 175 pound man; 15 cans for a 120 pound woman; 6 12-oz. cans for a 50-pound child).
Obviously, if you're drinking that much soda, you have other problems.
Aspartame is a "dipeptide", a linking of two amino acids. Massive polypeptides are called "proteins". Aspartame is broken down into its component amino acids in the stomach. One of the byproducts of aspartame metabolism is formaldehyde...this is a fact that has been used by the anti-aspartame lobby to vilify aspartame; the problem with this is that ANY protein has formaldehyde as a byproduct...it's part of the normal metabolism of the human body and the cells can take care of it with no problem whatsoever.
If you want me to go over the anti-aspartame arguments point by point, let me know.
If you have particular questions about aspartame, also let me know. I am not a fan of aspartame, but I'm less a fan of anti-scientific fear-mongering which is all over the internet on this topic.
your pal,
steve
Ah, ok, if you DID drink beyond the toxic dose, what would you experience?
First, if you drank that many sodas, you'd have more symptoms from the extra water intake than anything else. Water in that amount is more toxic than the aspartame; remember "Wee for a Wii"? Several things happen: 1) you lose the salt gradient in your kidneys, abolishing their ability to concentrate urine resulting in gross abnormalities in serum salts (bad) 2) all this fresh water in the bloodstream rushes into the salty brain, causing brain swelling, coma and possibly death (really bad) 3) all the carbonation makes you fart and belch like crazy (more amusing than anything else).
So let's forget about the sodas and think about what would happen if you just ate toxic amounts of aspartame powder. First off, since aspartame is really just a little tiny protein, nothing much will happen to you. However, the LONG TERM effects have been postulated to include lymphomas, leukemias, bladder cancer, and other carcinomas. So I did a literature search of the medical databases and found this review article:
Ann Oncol. 2004 Oct;15(10):1460-5.
Artificial sweeteners--do they bear a carcinogenic risk?
Weihrauch MR, Diehl V.
Department of Internal Medicine I of the University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
martin.weihrauch@uni-koeln.de
Artificial sweeteners are added to a wide variety of food, drinks, drugs and
hygiene products. Since their introduction, the mass media have reported about
potential cancer risks, which has contributed to undermine the public's sense of
security. It can be assumed that every citizen of Western countries uses
artificial sweeteners, knowingly or not. A cancer-inducing activity of one of
these substances would mean a health risk to an entire population. We performed
several PubMed searches of the National Library of Medicine for articles in
English about artificial sweeteners. These articles included 'first generation'
sweeteners such as saccharin, cyclamate and aspartame, as well as 'new
generation' sweeteners such as acesulfame-K, sucralose, alitame and neotame.
Epidemiological studies in humans did not find the bladder cancer-inducing
effects of saccharin and cyclamate that had been reported from animal studies in
rats. Despite some rather unscientific assumptions, there is no evidence that
aspartame is carcinogenic. Case-control studies showed an elevated relative risk
of 1.3 for heavy artificial sweetener use (no specific substances specified) of
>1.7 g/day. For new generation sweeteners, it is too early to establish any
epidemiological evidence about possible carcinogenic risks. As many artificial
sweeteners are combined in today's products, the carcinogenic risk of a single
substance is difficult to assess. However, according to the current literature,
the possible risk of artificial sweeteners to induce cancer seems to be
negligible.
So far, that's the best we can come up with; researchers have an open mind...if there's a risk found in good, scientific studies, it'll get reported.
As for me, I'm just not a fan because I think the whole idea of "soda pop" is just stupid. Why we think we have to drink polluted water is beyond me. When CocaCola actually had cocaine in it, I could imagine it. With Caffeine and artificial caramel coloring I don't get it. But that's just me. My family raised me weird.
Beer, now, is a magical substance...
:drunk:
So HTG, I implore you...please do some legitimate research before spouting anti-scientific nonsense on an international radio program.
Pubmed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/)
Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/)
-HTG 4/01/2010
I'm sorry to break this to you HTG, but the internet has lied to you. The overwhelming weight of scientific research shows no evidence that aspartame is a dangerous substance.
The FDA (http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodIngredientsPackaging/ucm094211.htm) states:
Q Do low-calorie sweeteners cause adverse reactions?
A No. Food safety experts generally agree there is no convincing evidence of a cause and effect relationship between these sweeteners and negative health effects in humans. The FDA has monitored consumer complaints of possible adverse reactions for more than 15 years.
For example, in carefully controlled clinical studies, aspartame has not been shown to cause adverse or allergic reactions. However, persons with a rare hereditary disease known as phenylketonuria (PKU) must control their intake of phenylalanine from all sources, including aspartame. Although aspartame contains only a small amount of phenylalanine, labels of aspartame-containing foods and beverages must include a statement advising phenylketonurics of the presence of phenylalanine.
Individuals who have concerns about possible adverse effects from food additives or other substances should contact their physicians.
The European Food Safety Authority (http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/anstopics/topic/aspartame.htm) advises:
Aspartame
Aspartame is a low-calorie, intense sweetener. It is a white, odourless powder, approximately 200 times sweeter than sugar.
Aspartame is used in a number of foodstuffs such as drinks, desserts, sweets, dairy, chewing gums, energy-reduces and weight control products and as a table-top sweetener throughout the world. The sweetener has been authorised for many years in many countries following thorough safety assessments.
EFSA's role and activities
The sweetener and its breakdown products have been a matter of extensive investigation for more than 20 years including experimental animal studies, clinical research, intake and epidemiological studies and post-marketing surveillance. Aspartame was found to be safe for human consumption, a conclusion which was reconfirmed in the review carried out by the Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) in 2002.
In 2007 the European Ramazzini Foundation in Bologna, Italy, published findings of a new study on the carcinogenicity of aspartame in rats. EFSA’s ANS Panel adopted an opinion on this study in January 2009. The ANS Panel subsequently updated its opinion in March 2009 taking into consideration data submitted by the Ramazzini Foundation in February 2009. The Panel concluded that on the basis of all the evidence currently available, including the ERF study published in 2007, there is no indication of any genotoxic or carcinogenic potential of aspartame and no reason to revise the previously established Acceptable Daily Intake for aspartame of 40 mg/kg body weight. An earlier opinion , following the first study on aspartame by the European Ramazzini Foundation, was adopted by the former AFC Panel in 2006.
Initiative in cooperation with the Advisory Forum
Even though aspartame has been authorised for many years in many countries following thorough safety assessments, a degree of public concern about the safety of aspartame has continued. EFSA, together with its Advisory Forum made up of representatives of the risk assessment bodies in the EU Member States, is now working to address this public concern.
EFSA adopted an opinion in 2006 reconfirming the safety of aspartame. This work is not being undertaken because of new concerns about the current safety assessments. However, both EFSA and its Advisory Forum recognize that public concern continues despite the risk assessments that have been undertaken. The aim of this initiative is to ensure that every effort has been made to address these concerns.
In April 2009 EFSA held a meeting of national experts with relevant scientific knowledge in relation to aspartame, nominated by their Member States. They looked at all the published literature and other data made available, with the aim of addressing in a comprehensive manner the public concern that remained. Experts also took into consideration additional evidence and literature that EFSA had gathered through a call for data issued in 2008.
Following the national experts meeting in Porto held in November 2009 and further work since then, the report of the national experts has now been completed. At the February Advisory Forum meeting it was agreed to publish the draft report and hold a consultation workshop on its contents prior to the Advisory Forum considering the report at its May meeting. The consultation workshop will be held in Frankfurt on 23rd April.
Our own Dr. Steve (http://www.ronfez.net/forums/showthread.php?t=83245) had this to say:
We did a long piece on apartame paranoia on Weird Medicine one night...since I am TERRIBLE at indexing topics on the show, I'll have to search to find which one it was.
Aspartame is toxic, if taken in large enough doses, and the "Acceptable Daily Intake" (ADI) is adjusted to be around 10% of the toxic dose (if I remember correctly). The ADI of aspartame is 50 mg/kg of body weight per day (22 cans of a diet soft drink for a 175 pound man; 15 cans for a 120 pound woman; 6 12-oz. cans for a 50-pound child).
Obviously, if you're drinking that much soda, you have other problems.
Aspartame is a "dipeptide", a linking of two amino acids. Massive polypeptides are called "proteins". Aspartame is broken down into its component amino acids in the stomach. One of the byproducts of aspartame metabolism is formaldehyde...this is a fact that has been used by the anti-aspartame lobby to vilify aspartame; the problem with this is that ANY protein has formaldehyde as a byproduct...it's part of the normal metabolism of the human body and the cells can take care of it with no problem whatsoever.
If you want me to go over the anti-aspartame arguments point by point, let me know.
If you have particular questions about aspartame, also let me know. I am not a fan of aspartame, but I'm less a fan of anti-scientific fear-mongering which is all over the internet on this topic.
your pal,
steve
Ah, ok, if you DID drink beyond the toxic dose, what would you experience?
First, if you drank that many sodas, you'd have more symptoms from the extra water intake than anything else. Water in that amount is more toxic than the aspartame; remember "Wee for a Wii"? Several things happen: 1) you lose the salt gradient in your kidneys, abolishing their ability to concentrate urine resulting in gross abnormalities in serum salts (bad) 2) all this fresh water in the bloodstream rushes into the salty brain, causing brain swelling, coma and possibly death (really bad) 3) all the carbonation makes you fart and belch like crazy (more amusing than anything else).
So let's forget about the sodas and think about what would happen if you just ate toxic amounts of aspartame powder. First off, since aspartame is really just a little tiny protein, nothing much will happen to you. However, the LONG TERM effects have been postulated to include lymphomas, leukemias, bladder cancer, and other carcinomas. So I did a literature search of the medical databases and found this review article:
Ann Oncol. 2004 Oct;15(10):1460-5.
Artificial sweeteners--do they bear a carcinogenic risk?
Weihrauch MR, Diehl V.
Department of Internal Medicine I of the University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
martin.weihrauch@uni-koeln.de
Artificial sweeteners are added to a wide variety of food, drinks, drugs and
hygiene products. Since their introduction, the mass media have reported about
potential cancer risks, which has contributed to undermine the public's sense of
security. It can be assumed that every citizen of Western countries uses
artificial sweeteners, knowingly or not. A cancer-inducing activity of one of
these substances would mean a health risk to an entire population. We performed
several PubMed searches of the National Library of Medicine for articles in
English about artificial sweeteners. These articles included 'first generation'
sweeteners such as saccharin, cyclamate and aspartame, as well as 'new
generation' sweeteners such as acesulfame-K, sucralose, alitame and neotame.
Epidemiological studies in humans did not find the bladder cancer-inducing
effects of saccharin and cyclamate that had been reported from animal studies in
rats. Despite some rather unscientific assumptions, there is no evidence that
aspartame is carcinogenic. Case-control studies showed an elevated relative risk
of 1.3 for heavy artificial sweetener use (no specific substances specified) of
>1.7 g/day. For new generation sweeteners, it is too early to establish any
epidemiological evidence about possible carcinogenic risks. As many artificial
sweeteners are combined in today's products, the carcinogenic risk of a single
substance is difficult to assess. However, according to the current literature,
the possible risk of artificial sweeteners to induce cancer seems to be
negligible.
So far, that's the best we can come up with; researchers have an open mind...if there's a risk found in good, scientific studies, it'll get reported.
As for me, I'm just not a fan because I think the whole idea of "soda pop" is just stupid. Why we think we have to drink polluted water is beyond me. When CocaCola actually had cocaine in it, I could imagine it. With Caffeine and artificial caramel coloring I don't get it. But that's just me. My family raised me weird.
Beer, now, is a magical substance...
:drunk:
So HTG, I implore you...please do some legitimate research before spouting anti-scientific nonsense on an international radio program.
Pubmed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/)
Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/)