Quote:

The combined results of this new study showed that just one 12-fl oz. can (355 ml) of diet soda daily leads to

---

The simple solution is to only drink 11 ounces.

tymoteusz3 said:

According to this post here.

The studies that are linked to at the bottom show nothing of the sort...
Don't people read the studies they link to before writing an article? I guess I know the answer to that already. Actually I think this is more a case of total dishonesty than naivety.
Someone posted that article on facebook as proof that aspartame causes leukemia and lymphoma.

---

I don't think aspartame is healthy whether it turns out to be linked to leukemia or not.  For the last few years I didn't believe the negative hype about aspartame.  But due to increasing health problems I cut it out of my diet completely.  The results have been overwhelmingly positive. 

I've heard that humans are much more sensitve to aspartame than any lab animal.  One of the chemists I work with said that it is unstable in liquid form and one of the break down products is methanol if it is heated high enough, but he was not sure at exactly what temperture this happens.

It is the most complained about product according to the FDA, and it receives about 80% of all the food related complaints.  Some scientists such as Dr. Russell Blaylock, refer to it as an excitotoxin that causes neurodegenartive diseases.

But...go ahead and consume it becuase the FDA has all out best interests at heart and would never steer us wrong.  The Nutrasweet company would never lie or conduct flawed studies.  i am probably just some weird anomaly who is somewhat allergic to it.

HippieChick8 said:

I don't think aspartame is healthy whether it turns out to be linked to leukemia or not.  For the last few years I didn't believe the negative hype about aspartame.  But due to increasing health problems I cut it out of my diet completely.  The results have been overwhelmingly positive. 

---

Quote:

I've heard that humans are much more sensitve to aspartame than any lab animal.  One of the chemists I work with said that it is unstable in liquid form and one of the break down products is methanol if it is heated high enough, but he was not sure at exactly what temperture this happens.

---

Quote:

It is the most complained about product according to the FDA, and it receives about 80% of all the food related complaints.  Some scientists such as Dr. Russell Blaylock, refer to it as an excitotoxin that causes neurodegenartive diseases.

---

Quote:

But...go ahead and consume it becuase the FDA has all out best interests at heart and would never steer us wrong.  The Nutrasweet company would never lie or conduct flawed studies.  i am probably just some weird anomaly who is somewhat allergic to it.

---

tymoteusz3 said:

According to this post here.

The studies that are linked to at the bottom show nothing of the sort...
Don't people read the studies they link to before writing an article? I guess I know the answer to that already. Actually I think this is more a case of total dishonesty than naivety.
Someone posted that article on facebook as proof that aspartame causes leukemia and lymphoma.

---

johnm214 said:

HippieChick8 said:

I don't think aspartame is healthy whether it turns out to be linked to leukemia or not.  For the last few years I didn't believe the negative hype about aspartame.  But due to increasing health problems I cut it out of my diet completely.  The results have been overwhelmingly positive. 

---

How do you know the results have been positive?  I bet you don't know what the results were at all.  Its pretty difficult to figure something like that out yourself without a rigorous blinded protocol.

Quote:

I've heard that humans are much more sensitve to aspartame than any lab animal.  One of the chemists I work with said that it is unstable in liquid form and one of the break down products is methanol if it is heated high enough, but he was not sure at exactly what temperture this happens.

---

It breaks down into methanol in the body anyways, just like many other products in our food.

As for whether humans are more sensitive, who cares?  Studies done on humans themselves have been unable to identify any damage from reasonable conceivable uses of aspartame.

I'm pretty suspicious of the aspartame alarmists as they pretty much never target other chemicals that break down to methanol and don't seek the removal of them from the grocery stores (and much of their beloved organic produce along with it).

Quote:

It is the most complained about product according to the FDA, and it receives about 80% of all the food related complaints.  Some scientists such as Dr. Russell Blaylock, refer to it as an excitotoxin that causes neurodegenartive diseases.

---

So what?

A bunch of people complained because janet jackson's nipple was on TV for a second- that doesn't mean it caused any problems.

People are dumb and there's a great deal of hysteria about aspartame, so of course there's a lot of complaints.  That said, please cite this 80% figure, because that sounds quite exaggerated given the number of food poisoning cases every year.

Quote:

But...go ahead and consume it becuase the FDA has all out best interests at heart and would never steer us wrong.  The Nutrasweet company would never lie or conduct flawed studies.  i am probably just some weird anomaly who is somewhat allergic to it.

---

Nice straw man.  If you keep arguing against phantoms you'll find there's no need to consider contrary positions at all.

a) there's good evidence aspartame has no serious problems when considering studies not funded by commercial interests,
b) what difference does it make who funds the study?  If you have evidence of fraud, come out with it.
c) you haven't demonstrated you've suffered any problems from aspartame.
d) who gives a damn about the FDA?  The aspartame hippies are wrong not because the FDA approved aspartame but because they are making hysterical claims with no evidence and plenty of contravening evidence.

tymoteusz3 said:

According to this post here.

The studies that are linked to at the bottom show nothing of the sort...
Don't people read the studies they link to before writing an article? I guess I know the answer to that already. Actually I think this is more a case of total dishonesty than naivety.
Someone posted that article on facebook as proof that aspartame causes leukemia and lymphoma.

---

No, I don't think they even read the abstracts or attempt to understand them.  All they need to know is a few facts, such as toxic products are produced from the chemical, and they have their answer right there.  Questions of dose, effect, et cet are completely dismissed.

These are the same people that will eat organic tomatoes with no worries about methanol, but because soda contains a 'chemical' will throw a fit.

---

HippieChick8 said:

Here is one source:http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Aspartame


From the article:
Industry-funded studies

In 2007, a review study was published by a panel of experts,[79] declaring aspartame to be "very safe".[80] The panel was chosen by the Burdock Group, a consulting firm serving the food, dietary supplement, and cosmetics industries,[80] which was in turn hired by Ajinomoto,[81] the world's largest aspartame manufacturer. Michael F. Jacobson, executive director of the consumer group Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), said that the study was "totally unreliable" and that some members of the expert panel were "longstanding industry consultants". He also observed that the panel was highly accepting of studies finding aspartame safe, but highly critical of those linking aspartame to possible health risks.[80] The panel coordinator responded that panel members were not told the name of the company funding the study until the study was submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

Critics ask whether the review has any credibility given that the authors have done paid work for Monsanto, several authors have official positions in trade and research associations funded by Monsanto, Ajinomoto, Coca Cola, and PepsiCo, several authors work for corporate advocacy groups, one of which called aspartame toxicity a 'nonissue' before the review was undertaken, and one author who consults for companies that sell aspartame and in the past has said that aspartame is safe.[82][83] The chief scientist behind the review, Bernadene Magnuson, is a consultant to the aspartame and soft drink industry, and has travelled the world, funded by companies like Coca-Cola, to give reassuring lectures on the safety of aspartame.[84]

A 2005 report in The Guardian stated that a 1996 review of aspartame research found that every single industry-funded study found aspartame safe, but 92% of independent studies identified one or more problems with its safety.[85][86][35] The article referred to Ralph G. Walton, a professor of clinical psychiatry at Northeastern Ohio Universities Colleges of Medicine and Pharmacy,[87] who states that industry funding may have affected the conclusions of aspartame-related research. Walton states that researchers with ties to industry find no safety problems, while many of those without ties to aspartame find toxicities.[35][88]

Also in 2005, the British Medical Journal published a letter that noted that "the glaring disparity in results from industry funded and independently funded research is clearly of considerable concern."[89]

---

Quote:

Do you have proof that most independent studies show aspartame to be non-hazardous?

---

Quote:

I not not going to be an activist for the removal of Aspartame but I such don't think it's healthy. As long as they continue to label the products that contain it, I won't interfere with anyone's "right" to consume it.

---

HippieChick8 said:

Do you think that every chemical on the market today that is intended for human consumption is safe because it has the FDA's seal of approval?

---

Quote:

  Do you know that aspartame was banned by the FDA for 16 years until 1981 when Reagan appointed a new FDA commissioner?  It all boils down to politics. 

---

Quote:

It also boils down to trust.  I trust people that I know personally more than I trust any institution.  For example, I was told by an FDA chemist that I know personally that retinyl palmitate, when applied to the skin and exposed to sunlight, causes cancerous tumors.  But for political reasons this substance has not been banned in sunscreens. 

---

Quote:

I've worked in the pharmaceutical industry so I do have some inside information on certain matters.  The only reason I'm stating this is not to try to win some debate but just as a warning.  People are naive when it comes to Big Pharma and the FDA.  They seem to believe in "scientific studies" with an almost religious like fervor.  I know a PhD chemist who was told to "make the data work, PERIOD!"  He even came up with a slogan:  If you torture the data enough, it will confess.

---

Quote:

The Obama Administration has given its blessing to PepsiCo to continue utilizing the services of a company that produces flavor chemicals for the beverage giant using aborted human fetal tissue.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/035276_Pepsi_fetal_cells_business_operations.html#ixzz2P2IPJb7j

---

Cannashroom said:

We had a VP of research at Pepsi come talk to the biochem department at my university about their work on artificial sweeteners.

It was really quite fascinating.  They had done all these tests to show how the body responds to the taste of sugar. I can't remember all the details exactly but It was stuff like priming the metabolism and starting the insulin response for sugar.  They showed how different artificial sweeteners would stimulate the body in different ways to start the process of digesting and using the sugar.  But since there is no sugar it led to other unwanted effects.

The take home message is that the sugar receptors on your tongue start a regulatory cascade for the processing of sugar.  Now different sugar-like molecules all signal these pathways in some way, but don't provide the sugar.  It confuses the body and they were trying to design better sweeteners based on this research.

Something all of us noted, they didn't show any of the research for aspartame or sweeteners actually in their drinks.

Then one of the professors asked a really poignant question about safety.  Basically all this research is quite new, over 15 years after these sweeteners hit the market.  He was asking about how this new data would reflect on the safety of already available sweeteners.  Pepsi VP just beat around the bush and never gave a straight answer, lol.

We still do not understand the effect of these substances on the body.  We are starting to realize that it is all a lot more complicated than just tasting like sugar.

Funny story on how sucralose was discovered:

A bunch of sugar analogues were being tested for various things.  A supervisor told a new foreign student to go "test" the new compound.  He head to go "taste" it.  He did and he told them, It is really really really sweet!

And sucralose was born!

---

LunarEclipse said:

Cannashroom said:

We had a VP of research at Pepsi come talk to the biochem department at my university about their work on artificial sweeteners.

It was really quite fascinating.  They had done all these tests to show how the body responds to the taste of sugar. I can't remember all the details exactly but It was stuff like priming the metabolism and starting the insulin response for sugar.  They showed how different artificial sweeteners would stimulate the body in different ways to start the process of digesting and using the sugar.  But since there is no sugar it led to other unwanted effects.

The take home message is that the sugar receptors on your tongue start a regulatory cascade for the processing of sugar.  Now different sugar-like molecules all signal these pathways in some way, but don't provide the sugar.  It confuses the body and they were trying to design better sweeteners based on this research.

Something all of us noted, they didn't show any of the research for aspartame or sweeteners actually in their drinks.

Then one of the professors asked a really poignant question about safety.  Basically all this research is quite new, over 15 years after these sweeteners hit the market.  He was asking about how this new data would reflect on the safety of already available sweeteners.  Pepsi VP just beat around the bush and never gave a straight answer, lol.

We still do not understand the effect of these substances on the body.  We are starting to realize that it is all a lot more complicated than just tasting like sugar.

Funny story on how sucralose was discovered:

A bunch of sugar analogues were being tested for various things.  A supervisor told a new foreign student to go "test" the new compound.  He head to go "taste" it.  He did and he told them, It is really really really sweet!

And sucralose was born!

---

What's really funny is that kid died two days later.

Let's just say there is a reason you shouldn't want to drink methyl alcohol, or have formaldehyde in your body before the undertaker comes to juice you up.  Brain cancer rose by hundreds of percent in the years following the introduction of aspartame.  Coincidence?  I doubt it.  Sure you drink a couple of diet sodas a day even then maybe you feel ok long term.  But you do like some do and drink a twelve pack cause you really want to lose weight and all bets are off.  With temperature in the cans the breakdown to "ass"partame constituents isn't a healthy thing at all.  Part of the sickness in Iraq was from Diet Coke stored at 100+F.  Not good.

---