Aspartame - Would you ban it?

You guys are funny.

Adpartame is actually a component of breastmilk, although not in concentrations similar to Diet Coke

Natural Ingredients Imply "Not Harmful"

http://www.mercola.com/article/aspartame/not_natural.htm

"The building blocks of protein" and "your body cannot distinguish between the amino acids in aspartame and milk" (Deskins G1) are common phrases used to describe the ingredients in aspartame. These analogies are used to convince the public that aspartame is as safe as milk, or other protein foods. According to Dr. H. J. Roberts, who was listed in "The Best Doctors in the U.S.," it is true that aspartame is composed of the same amino acids that can be found in protein foods. However, there are only two amino acids, phenylalanine and aspartic acid, that are in aspartame while protein foods contain many different amino acids. When aspartame is ingested, it floods the bloodstream with these two amino acids while protein foods, on the other hand, have other amino acids which "neutralize" and eliminate this sudden flooding (30). Like taking words out of context, taking amino acids out of their natural form might cause problems. A closer look at aspartame's ingredients and the adverse reactions reported by thousands of people reveal the dangers of this artificial sweetener.

Dr. Roberts states in his book, Aspartame Is it Safe?, that aspartame's three components are phenylalanine (50 percent), aspartic acid (40 percent), and methanol (10 percent). When aspartame is exposed to heat or prolonged storage, it breaks down into metabolites. One of these breakdown products is Diketopiperazine, a toxic metabolite that is not usually found in our diet. The effects of these different metabolites are unknown (27, 38-40).

According to an article in Consumer Reports, food and beverages containing phenylalanine, the major ingredient in aspartame, must be labeled due to the genetic disorder, phenylketonuria (PKU). The U.S. carries a warning on all aspartame products to alert people with PKU (58). People with this genetic disorder lack the enzyme needed to metabolize phenylalanine and therefore it "accumulates" in the body and can "cause severe mental retardation" (Roberts 33). According to Steven Farber, Ph.D. candidate in brain and cognitive sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, there are an "estimated 10 million people who are carriers and may not know it." He states that these PKU carriers are also at risk because "they cannot degrade phenylalanine as effectively as normal individuals and may be sensitive to increased levels in their diets" (48).

Phenylketonurics and PKU carriers are not the only people that should avoid phenylalanine. Dr. Louis J. Elsas, II, Director of Medical Genetics at Emory University School of Medicine, "recommends that pregnant women avoid aspartame sweeteners" because it is unknown what quantity is considered safe (qtd. In Assc. Of Birth Defect Children 2). Dr. Roberts also suggests to avoid aspartame products during pregnancy due to increased levels of phenylalanine on the "fetal side of the placenta." Increases levels of phenylalanine may "interfere with the growth of the fetus brain" (181).

In an article published in the Association of Birth Defect Children, Karen Mills argues that aspartame may be responsible for her son's health problems. Unaware of the dangers of aspartame, she consumed four to six diet sodas a day and also took phenylalanine capsules to relieve fatigue during her pregnancy. She was in good health and did not smoke or drink during this time. Her pregnancy was considered normal and prenatal testing ruled out any genetic birth defects. Her delivery was also normal. When her son Brandon was born, he was severely retarded with serious neurological problems. All of his x-rays, genetic studies, and blood tests came back normal. Karen states, "I am suspicious that NutraSweet™ could be a contributing factor in Brandon's situation since there are no physical or genetic causes revealed for his neurological problems" (2).

Aspartic acid (aspartame) and glutamate (ingredient in monosodium glutamate) have been labeled as excitotoxins, which Dr. Russell Blaylock, author of Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills, defines as "a group of excitatory amino acids that can cause sensitive neurons to die" (226). An article in the Orlando Sentinel Tribune states, "according to Blaylock, a single meal may contain several of these additives . . . given a high enough dose can include brain lesions." Blaylock is concerned that "hundreds of millions of infants and young children are at great risk and their parents are not even aware of it" (qtd. In Bonvie and Bonvie G1).

The last component of aspartame is methanol, better known as wood alcohol, a "deadly poison," claims Dr. Roberts. The Environmental Protection Agency recommends less than eight milligrams per day of methanol. A typical liter of an aspartame diet soda contains approximately 55 milligrams. Complications of methanol poisoning include blindness, brain swelling, pancreatitis, numbness, shooting pains, cardiac changes, and death (28, 42-45). According to Aspartame Consumer Safety Network, when ingested, methanol breaks down into formaldehyde, "known to cause cancer, accumulating slowly without detection in the body" (The Deadly Deception 2).

Eric Soto was a victim of methanol poisoning. In 1989, when Eric was diagnosed with diabetes, he started consuming aspartame products to avoid sugar. Soon after, Eric complained of numbness in his fingers. After seeing a doctor for this problem, it was suggested that he have surgery to correct a wrist nerve. Before he went in for surgery, a black spot appeared over his left eye. After being examined by an opthamologist, Eric was admitted to the hospital for possible methanol poisoning. He decided to stop using aspartame products after hearing about the dangers from a friend. The damage to Eric's eyes was permanent, but the numbness in his fingers stopped even though doctors said it could only be corrected by surgery (The Deadly Deception B4).

Eric Soto is not the only person to suffer from aspartame related health problems. Mary Stoddard, president of Aspartame Consumer Safety Network, claims that nearly 10,000 complaints have been reported to this non-profit organization.
 
I wouldn't ban it, but I read up on it and I'm going with sucralose. They do have version of diet coke that uses that over aspartame now--so I can have soda again.

I've got about 350 of the 400 packet box of splenda left I will sell you for cheap :cool:

The Potential Dangers of Sucralose (Splenda?)

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2000/12/03/sucralose-dangers.aspx

Is Splenda Really As Safe As They Claim It to Be?

As of 2006, only six human trials have been published on Splenda (sucralose). Of these six trials, only two of the trials were completed and published before the FDA approved sucralose for human consumption. The two published trials had a grand total of 36 total human subjects.

36 people sure doesn't sound like many, but wait, it gets worse, only 23 total were actually given sucralose for testing and here is the real killer:

The longest trial at this time had lasted only four days and looked at sucralose in relation to tooth decay, not human tolerance.

Why Do You Need to Know About Splenda?

Splenda, best known for its marketing logo, "made from sugar so it tastes like sugar,' has taken the sweetener industry by storm. Splenda has become the nations number one selling artificial sweetener in a very short period of time.

Between 2000 and 2004, the percentage of US households using Splenda products jumped from 3 to 20 percent. In a one year period, Splenda sales topped $177 million compared with $62 million spent on aspartame-based Equal and $52 million on saccharin-based Sweet 'N Low.

McNeil Nutritionals, in their marketing pitch for Splenda emphasizes that Splenda has endured some of the most rigorous testing to date for any food additive. Enough so to convince the average consumer that it is in fact safe. They claim that over 100 studies have been conducted on Splenda. What they don't tell you is that most of the studies are on animals.

Additional Concerns About Splenda Studies

There have been no long-term human toxicity studies published until after the FDA approved sucralose for human consumption. Following FDA approval a human toxicity trial was conducted, but lasted only three months, hardly the length of time most Splenda users plan to consume sucralose. No studies have ever been done on children or pregnant women.

Much of the controversy surrounding Splenda does not focus just on its safety, but rather on its false advertising claims. The competition among sweeteners is anything but sweet. The sugar industry is currently suing McNeil Nutritionals for implying that Splenda is a natural form of sugar with no calories.

Is It REALLY Sugar?

There is no question that sucralose starts off as a sugar molecule, it is what goes on in the factory that is concerning. Sucralose is a synthetic chemical that was originally cooked up in a laboratory. In the five step patented process of making sucralose, three chlorine molecules are added to a sucrose or sugar molecule. A sucrose molecule is a disaccharide that contains two single sugars bound together; glucose and fructose.


The chemical process to make sucralose alters the chemical composition of the sugar so much that it is somehow converted to a fructo-galactose molecule. This type of sugar molecule does not occur in nature and therefore your body does not possess the ability to properly metabolize it. As a result of this "unique" biochemical make-up, McNeil Nutritionals makes it's claim that Splenda is not digested or metabolized by the body, making it have zero calories.

It is not that Splenda is naturally zero calories. If your body had the capacity to metabolize it then it would no longer has zero calories.


How Much Splenda is Left In Your Body After You Eat It?

If you look at the research (which is primarily extrapolated form animal studies) you will see that in fact 15% of sucralose is absorbed into your digestive system and ultimately is stored in your body. To reach a number such as 15% means some people absorb more and some people absorb less. In one human study, one of the eight participants did not excrete any sucralose even after 3 days. Clearly his body was absorbing and metabolizing this chemical. That is what our bodies are supposed to do.


The bottom line is that we all have our own unique biochemical make-up. Some of you will absorb and metabolize more than others. If you are healthy and your digestive system works well, you may be at higher risk for breaking down this product in your stomach and intestines. Please understand that it is impossible for the manufacturers of Splenda to make any guarantees based on their limited animal data.


If you feel that Splenda affects you adversely, it is valid. Don't let someone convince you that it is all in your head. You know your body better than anyone else.

How to Determine if Splenda is Harming You

The best way to determine if Splenda or sucralose is affecting you is to perform an elimination/challenge with it. First eliminate it and other artificial sweeteners from your diet completely for a period of one to two weeks. After this period reintroduce it in sufficient quantity.


For example, use it in your beverage in the morning, and eat at least two sucralose containing products the remainder of the day. On this day, avoid other artificial sweeteners so that you are able to differentiate which one may be causing a problem for you. Do this for a period of one to three days. Take notice of how your body is feeling, particularly if it feels different than when you were artificial sweetener free.


Splenda May Still Be Harming You


If you complete the elimination/challenge trial described above and do not notice any changes then it appears you are able to tolerate Splenda acutely. However, please understand that you are not out of the woods yet.


The entire issue of long-term safety has never been established. Let's look at the facts again:

There have only been six human trials to date

The longest trial lasted three months

At LEAST 15% of Splenda is not excreted from your body in a timely manner
Considering that Splenda bears more chemical similarity to DDT than it does to sugar, are you willing to bet your health on this data? Remember that fat soluble substances, such as DDT, can remain in your fat for decades and devastate your health.

If the above facts don't concern because you believe the FDA would not ever allow a toxic substance into the market then read on.

Do You Really Believe These People Are Going to Protect You?

Please consider that the only organizations between you and potentially toxic side effects are the FDA and the manufacturers of sucralose (Tate & Lyle) and of Splenda (McNeil Nutritionals).

The FDA has a long standing history of ineffective screening and rampant conflict of interests as demonstrated in their inability to identify Vioxx as too dangerous to be on the market. This mistake costs 55,000 people their lives.

Now the point I want you to understand here, because it is really important, is that Splenda is not a drug and is only a food additive. As such the number of studies required to receive FDA approval is substantially less than drug. Vioxx had an order of magnitude of more comprehensive clinical trials than Splenda ever did, and despite this rigorous approval process it still killed 55,000 people.

So, now you have the primary concerns I have about Splenda and the choices is yours.
 
Aspartame is also addictive.

If you don't believe me and drink Diet Coke (or anything like that) regularly then try to stop drinking it for one week and you'll see what I mean.

I was hooked for about 20 years and I'm glad I got off of it.
 
Aspartame is also addictive.

If you don't believe me and drink Diet Coke (or anything like that) regularly then try to stop drinking it for one week and you'll see what I mean.

I was hooked for about 20 years and I'm glad I got off of it.

Hmmmmmmmm.....I use to drink diet pepsi and use aspertame in my coffee daily. Once I got educated on the subject, I stopped both the diet pepsi and the aspertame in my coffee. Never bothered me at all. But if I don't have coffee within the first couple of hours I wake up, I will have the biggest migraine ever! (i.e., caffiene addiction)

Are you sure it's not the caffiene in the Pepsi you were missing? Do you drink coffee?
 
Just found out there's a better alternative that's been used for hundreds of years. Last week, I was in Home Depot with my daughter browsing around the garden/flower section and ran across a herb named Stevia. What caught my eye about it was the label: "30-40 times sweeter than cane sugar." I couldn't remember the name, so while we were out n about today, I stopped at Home Depot to see if I could find it, but there was none to be found. I asked the clerk and she told me she thought it was called Stevia.

Now I was just searching the internet and found that it has been used in Japan for over 30years as a sweetener (40% of their sweetner market), hundreds of years in South America, and of course had been banned by the US and EURO as a food additive (but legal as a supplement). Recently in 2007, a very big company (Coca-Cola) is working on using it as a sweetner substitute (trademarked as Rebiana). So I guess our government is going to now see it as non threatening and lift the ban on Stevia additives? Would it be a stretch to think that the Sugar and Artificial sweetner lobbyist with a little help from the FDA had something to do with the ban?

Damn the collusion runs deep in this country!! :mad:


what a nice sidenote for "The Revolution" statement on the Sugar quota. ;)
 
It sounds like it is better than the other substitutes out there. The FDA seems to be saying they don't have enough evidence for safety or toxicity one way or the other. Canada and the European community don't allow it either. http://www.steviacafe.net/
The Stevia Controversy
Manufacturers in Japan and other countries around the world have used stevia since the early 70’s to sweeten a variety of foods. However the FDA in the United States has routinely turned down requests to approve the use of stevia by U.S. food suppliers. In 1994, the FDA claimed, We don’t have enough data to conclude that the use [in food] would be safe.

It should be noted that the United States isn’t alone in its harsh stance on stevia use. Neither Canada, nor the European Union allow the addition of stevia to food by manufacturers. An EU scientific panel concluded that stevioside (a.k.a. stevia) is not acceptable as an alternative sweetener due to potential toxicity problems.

These arguments fall on the deaf ears of many stevia proponents. The evidence of repeated and apparently unharmful stevia use for the past several hundred years is all the proof they need. They point to stevia use in Japan over the past thirty years without a single case of documented stevia toxicity or adverse reaction. Read more about the safety and dangers of stevia.
 
All I know is, aspartame gives me horrific headaches. Like a bad migraine except without the "aura" you get with those. So I don't keep or use the stuff any more.
 
Just found out there's a better alternative that's been used for hundreds of years. Last week, I was in Home Depot with my daughter browsing around the garden/flower section and ran across a herb named Stevia. What caught my eye about it was the label: "30-40 times sweeter than cane sugar." I couldn't remember the name, so while we were out n about today, I stopped at Home Depot to see if I could find it, but there was none to be found. I asked the clerk and she told me she thought it was called Stevia.

Now I was just searching the internet and found that it has been used in Japan for over 30years as a sweetener (40% of their sweetner market), hundreds of years in South America, and of course had been banned by the US and EURO as a food additive (but legal as a supplement). Recently in 2007, a very big company (Coca-Cola) is working on using it as a sweetner substitute (trademarked as Rebiana). So I guess our government is going to now see it as non threatening and lift the ban on Stevia additives? Would it be a stretch to think that the Sugar and Artificial sweetner lobbyist with a little help from the FDA had something to do with the ban?

Damn the collusion runs deep in this country!! :mad:


what a nice sidenote for "The Revolution" statement on the Sugar quota. ;)

You can buy stevia in bulk on the net. Looks costly but a little Stevia goes a long ways since you literally only need like a 1/8th of a teaspoon to sweeten a cup of coffee for instance.

You can also buy Stevia plants on the net if you want to grow your own.

It's not just Government and big Corp collusion that is going on here. It's population control (legalized genocide authorized by the government (FDA) through the use of corporations). Our government is literally giving us a rope to hang ourselves with while pretending the rope represents freedom.
 
All I know is, aspartame gives me horrific headaches. Like a bad migraine except without the "aura" you get with those. So I don't keep or use the stuff any more.


Same happens with my closest friend. Even just a piece of gum, a popsicle, whatever. It took a long time (after many tests, scans, etc.) for her to figure out that was the trigger. She's in pain for days when it happens.
 
I wouldn't ban DDT, LCD, PCP, IOD or ACL.....U - or aspartame. Monsato FTW (minus the Gov't intervention though)
 
I never liked the taste of the stuff. As for banning the substance. That is an initiative that I will not support. People should be free to consume whatever they wish, even if it tastes like shit.
 
Natural Ingredients Imply "Not Harmful"

http://www.mercola.com/article/aspartame/not_natural.htm

"The building blocks of protein" and "your body cannot distinguish between the amino acids in aspartame and milk" (Deskins G1) are common phrases used to describe the ingredients in aspartame. These analogies are used to convince the public that aspartame is as safe as milk, or other protein foods. According to Dr. H. J. Roberts, who was listed in "The Best Doctors in the U.S.," it is true that aspartame is composed of the same amino acids that can be found in protein foods. However, there are only two amino acids, phenylalanine and aspartic acid, that are in aspartame while protein foods contain many different amino acids. When aspartame is ingested, it floods the bloodstream with these two amino acids while protein foods, on the other hand, have other amino acids which "neutralize" and eliminate this sudden flooding (30). Like taking words out of context, taking amino acids out of their natural form might cause problems. A closer look at aspartame's ingredients and the adverse reactions reported by thousands of people reveal the dangers of this artificial sweetener.

Dr. Roberts states in his book, Aspartame Is it Safe?, that aspartame's three components are phenylalanine (50 percent), aspartic acid (40 percent), and methanol (10 percent). When aspartame is exposed to heat or prolonged storage, it breaks down into metabolites. One of these breakdown products is Diketopiperazine, a toxic metabolite that is not usually found in our diet. The effects of these different metabolites are unknown (27, 38-40).

According to an article in Consumer Reports, food and beverages containing phenylalanine, the major ingredient in aspartame, must be labeled due to the genetic disorder, phenylketonuria (PKU). The U.S. carries a warning on all aspartame products to alert people with PKU (58). People with this genetic disorder lack the enzyme needed to metabolize phenylalanine and therefore it "accumulates" in the body and can "cause severe mental retardation" (Roberts 33). According to Steven Farber, Ph.D. candidate in brain and cognitive sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, there are an "estimated 10 million people who are carriers and may not know it." He states that these PKU carriers are also at risk because "they cannot degrade phenylalanine as effectively as normal individuals and may be sensitive to increased levels in their diets" (48).

Phenylketonurics and PKU carriers are not the only people that should avoid phenylalanine. Dr. Louis J. Elsas, II, Director of Medical Genetics at Emory University School of Medicine, "recommends that pregnant women avoid aspartame sweeteners" because it is unknown what quantity is considered safe (qtd. In Assc. Of Birth Defect Children 2). Dr. Roberts also suggests to avoid aspartame products during pregnancy due to increased levels of phenylalanine on the "fetal side of the placenta." Increases levels of phenylalanine may "interfere with the growth of the fetus brain" (181).

In an article published in the Association of Birth Defect Children, Karen Mills argues that aspartame may be responsible for her son's health problems. Unaware of the dangers of aspartame, she consumed four to six diet sodas a day and also took phenylalanine capsules to relieve fatigue during her pregnancy. She was in good health and did not smoke or drink during this time. Her pregnancy was considered normal and prenatal testing ruled out any genetic birth defects. Her delivery was also normal. When her son Brandon was born, he was severely retarded with serious neurological problems. All of his x-rays, genetic studies, and blood tests came back normal. Karen states, "I am suspicious that NutraSweet™ could be a contributing factor in Brandon's situation since there are no physical or genetic causes revealed for his neurological problems" (2).

Aspartic acid (aspartame) and glutamate (ingredient in monosodium glutamate) have been labeled as excitotoxins, which Dr. Russell Blaylock, author of Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills, defines as "a group of excitatory amino acids that can cause sensitive neurons to die" (226). An article in the Orlando Sentinel Tribune states, "according to Blaylock, a single meal may contain several of these additives . . . given a high enough dose can include brain lesions." Blaylock is concerned that "hundreds of millions of infants and young children are at great risk and their parents are not even aware of it" (qtd. In Bonvie and Bonvie G1).

The last component of aspartame is methanol, better known as wood alcohol, a "deadly poison," claims Dr. Roberts. The Environmental Protection Agency recommends less than eight milligrams per day of methanol. A typical liter of an aspartame diet soda contains approximately 55 milligrams. Complications of methanol poisoning include blindness, brain swelling, pancreatitis, numbness, shooting pains, cardiac changes, and death (28, 42-45). According to Aspartame Consumer Safety Network, when ingested, methanol breaks down into formaldehyde, "known to cause cancer, accumulating slowly without detection in the body" (The Deadly Deception 2).

Eric Soto was a victim of methanol poisoning. In 1989, when Eric was diagnosed with diabetes, he started consuming aspartame products to avoid sugar. Soon after, Eric complained of numbness in his fingers. After seeing a doctor for this problem, it was suggested that he have surgery to correct a wrist nerve. Before he went in for surgery, a black spot appeared over his left eye. After being examined by an opthamologist, Eric was admitted to the hospital for possible methanol poisoning. He decided to stop using aspartame products after hearing about the dangers from a friend. The damage to Eric's eyes was permanent, but the numbness in his fingers stopped even though doctors said it could only be corrected by surgery (The Deadly Deception B4).

Eric Soto is not the only person to suffer from aspartame related health problems. Mary Stoddard, president of Aspartame Consumer Safety Network, claims that nearly 10,000 complaints have been reported to this non-profit organization.

That is funny considering Dr.Mercola uses the term "Natural" in the marketing of his products in the context that unnatural is bad and natural is a good thing. Which is totally devoid of reality given that body chemistry is not that simplistic.

http://products.mercola.com/cardio-essentials/

"Relying on a man-made, unnatural product..."
"Introducing A Natural Alternative for Promoting Cardiovascular Health"
 
You can thank the FDA and Donald Rumsfeld for aspartame. Stevia, on the other hand, a natural no calorie sweetener with no side effects is of course banned by our FDA as a sweetener, and any food product containing stevia must be labeled a nutritional supplement and not just food.

One more reason to eliminate the FDA, it has the opposite effect of its purpose.

Yongel you should see a doctor.

You are correct...stevia is a great all natural sweetner..........I have a jar in my pantry.....seriously if you use sweet and low or other sweetners for things like coffee, iced tea...etc.....check out stevia....good stuff.....it can be found at your local health food store......and really isn't any more expensive then other sweetners....if you use sweetners.....please research stevia...not only for your health, but your family's......it's a crime the FDA won't allow it to be used as a sweetner in commercial beverages......rather than banning aspartame.....I would rather see the FDA approve stevia for diet coke and pepsi as a sweetner....I think if that happened the market would decide stevia is a superior sweetner than aspartame and we would see aspartame fade from existence much to monsanto's dismay.......
 
That is funny considering Dr.Mercola uses the term "Natural" in the marketing of his products in the context that unnatural is bad and natural is a good thing. Which is totally devoid of reality given that body chemistry is not that simplistic.

http://products.mercola.com/cardio-essentials/

"Relying on a man-made, unnatural product..."
"Introducing A Natural Alternative for Promoting Cardiovascular Health"

Whine about Mercola all you want, everything I learned about good health I learned before the mercola website existed....and most of his views mirror mine....

I haven't been sick in 10 years.....NOT EVEN THE COMMON COLD!!!

Can you say the same?
 
I would rather see the FDA approve stevia for diet coke and pepsi as a sweetner....I think if that happened the market would decide stevia is a superior sweetner than aspartame and we would see aspartame fade from existence much to monsanto's dismay.......

It may be sooner than you think. Coca-Cola is already working on a Stevia sweetener under the trademarked name Rebiana.
 
No, I wouldn't ban anything. People should be able to make the choices they want. If they live a shorter life or die from using it, so be it, natural selection at it's finest.

If people were left to themselves to decide what is good for them and what is not then people might take the initiative to be more informed about what the effects of using different substances are.

We have a lazy populous because we expect the government to keep us safe. The only thing the government should keep us safe from is foreign invasion and criminals.
 
It may be sooner than you think. Coca-Cola is already working on a Stevia sweetener under the trademarked name Rebiana.

I hope so....Monsanto is in my opinion ONE OF THE MOST EVIL CORPORATIONS ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH........If I have ever seen a corporation that holds the Nazi philosphy....IT IS MONSANTO......

If I had the power to destroy 1 corporation of my choice on the face of the entire earth....IT WOULD BE MONSANTO.....THEY ARE PURE EVIL IN THE FORM OF A CORPORATION.......

If you want the truth to fight this evil join the millions against monsanto campaign.....

http://www.organicconsumers.org/monlink.cfm
 
Back
Top