Directory > Blog > Aspartame: Another myth potentially busted...

Aspartame: Another myth potentially busted...

From a recent study that was published, it looks like aspartame isn't as clearly bad as people think. It's common for people to say that artificial sweeteners cause cancer and brain defects, but according to the evidence -- or lack their of -- it appears to be perfectly safe.

Here's an article that summarizes some of the safety studies: Click to view.

People often site that aspartame causes cancer in rats. Well, here are some facts about animal studies:

1. Often things happen with animals that don't happen in humans. Sometimes they can be a gauge, but it only gives you some ideas and concepts, not conclusive evidence that the same thing happens in humans. Aspartame is a perfect example.

2. Often in animal studies they are given hundreds or thousands of times the dosage a normal human could ever consume.

3. Many times these studies are flawed or controversial. If a study isn't generally accepted by the medical community as well done, valid, and potentially conclusive, it essentially renders that study inconclusive. What "inconclusive" means is that you can't assume anything from that study.

If aspartame or other ingredients were really as harmful as the holistic community claimed it to, there would be more evidence to support that. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I'm not going to increase my intake of artificial sweeteners, but I'm also not going to go out of my way to avoid them like the plague. I think moderation is the key. If I have a choice between added dietary sugar (which is shown to cause weight gain, diabetes, and other diseases see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar#Sugar_and_health) and a non-sugar sweetener, I'll choose no sugar.

Just to be clear, I still think a natural diet with lots of raw fruits and vegetables, legumes, nuts, berries, whole grains, poultry, and fish is healthy and the best option for most people. I think junk food is to be avoided for many reasons. But, I think people are quick to accuse food additives as blatantly cancer causing when the truth is that there's little evidence to support that.

One exception is MSG, which seems to be a little sketchy (not with cancer, but with other things): (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monosodium_glutamate.

Good luck!

Amac

9/13/2007 10:22:12 AM

Written by Aaron M

My name is Aaron and I’m a business person, artist, musician, and writer. I am into improving my quality life through the choices I make. The values I hold above all others are fun, compassion, peace, reverence and awe for life, gratitude, truth, nature, and honesty. I believe "wellness" is a broad term that encomp...

View Full Profile

Comments

I never believed the hoopla about Apertame, they always have something new and bad to say about something. The truth of the matter is that we all have different DNA and are unique individuals so what my work for some doesn't always work for others.

Posted by Gracie

Rob-bob, I'll be happy to address your points. Your first point, I address above. I said that testing on animals sometimes gives a gauge, but isn't proof that something is or isn't effective or safe for humans. It's like a phase 1 test. Then it needs to be tested in humans. If it doesn't do the same thing as it did in animals we go with what the data said for humans, not the animal test. Yes, I know we're animals too. I'll clarify that I meant "testing on other species." :-) For your point number 2, I was not exaggerating at all. In fact, sometimes its hundreds of thousands. Here's an example: <url removed>. Here's a quote that I'd like to you read from the above article: "Concerns have been raised about the effect of sucralose on the thymus, an organ that is important to the immune system. A report from NICNAS cites two studies on rats, both of which found "a significant decrease in mean thymus weight" at a certain dose.[13] The sucralose dosages which caused the thymus gland effects referenced in the NICNAS report was 3000 mg/kg bw/day for 28 days. For an 80 kg (176 lb) human, this would mean a 28-day intake of 240 grams of sucralose, which is equivalent to more than 20,000 individual Splenda packets/day for approximately one month. The dose required to provoke any immunological response was 750 mg/kg bw/day,[14] or 60 grams of sucralose per day, which is more than 5,000 Splenda packets/day (there are 11.9 mg of sucralose in a 1g retail packet of Splenda). These and other studies were considered by regulators before concluding that sucralose was safe. However, because some ingested sucralose is broken down and absorbed by the body there is concern that chronic consumption may lead to thymus shrinkage or other side-effects." Consuming something over a lifetime doesn't necessarily mean that there are cumulative effects. You could have cumulative effects in some cases, but it's not a law. For number 3, you could be right in some instances. I can't deny politics. That's why the medical community tries to make sure there are many studies supporting a case before making any conclusions. All I'm saying is that we don't need to worry about aspartame causing cancer.

Posted by Aaron M

This is total rubbish. Why do the drug companies test on animals then if they are not the nearest substitute we have to humans. I totally disagree with drugs testing on animals. 1. "Often things happen with animals that don't happen in humans". We are animals ourselves. If things happen to other species, then all the 'proof' that drug companies and doctors offer us to 'prove' that drugs are safe is INVALID. 2. "Often in animal studies they are given hundreds or thousands of times the dosage a normal human could ever consume." I feel this is an exaggeration, however, the drugs companies would claim that they were testing toxicity. Over a lifetime, people such as you will consume a lot of these products and it will effect your liver. 3."Many times these studies are flawed or controversial." How do drugs companies and food manafacturers get their products past the regulators? They pay a well known or repected scientist to write a report for them. They dont want flawed or controversial studies after spending that amount of money on the report. Reports are deemed to be 'flawed or controversial' when the big boys dont want the report to be taken seriously, because it might undermine the products credibility. Artificial sweeteners are products of the slimming industries - to be sold to overweight people who cannot control their sugar intake. If diabetics are using them, it will most likely just add to their problems.

Posted by rob-bob

I agree that aspartame is perfectly fine in moderation. How often do you need to dump more than one packet of artificial sweetener in your tea or coffee? With "regular" sugar you need to put in much more to achieve the same level of sweetness. Sometimes even half a packet of artificial sweetener works for me. Honestly, I do prefer sucralose (Splenda) over aspartame or sacchrin, but if Splenda isn't available, I'm fine with the alternatives. Moderation FTW!

Posted by Matt

Foods That Fight Back Pain

Wellness Editor