Aspartame and Phenylalanine!

frostman on 18/12/2015 - 16:30
Last edited 21/12/2015 - 09:08

Hey folks,

We know that that the artificial sweetener Aspartame, breaks down into various components in our bodies, one of them being Phenylalanine.

There is conflicting research as to whether Aspartame and it's sub-chemicals cause devastating effects to your body.

I personally think artificial sweeteners are bad unless there is a very strong argument/proof that it's safe

ANYWAY…I chew ~1 packet of gum per day, so am slightly concerned…do you know of any alternative gums?

Also, all debates/arguments about Aspartame welcome here!

Food & Grocery

Comments

  • cmc on 18/12/2015 - 16:35
    +1

    There are some with stevia or xylitol from health food stores or online. I feel these are better alternatives to aspartame.

    • Adz81 on 18/12/2015 - 17:09
      +12

      Just an aside on xylitol, it's pretty deadly to dogs, so keep it away from them if you have any (yes, I realise the notion of a dog eating gum may seem ridiculous, but I'm pretty sure my dog would eat ALL of the things given the chance).

      • Meconium on 21/12/2015 - 10:46
        +3

        My late Pomeranian used to pick up used gum and chew it as we walked. It looked hilarious, chewing open-mouthed like it ain't no thang.

        • Islund on 21/12/2015 - 12:42
          +10

          could be the reason why the Pomeranian is no longer with you

      • macrocephalic on 22/12/2015 - 08:45

        I caught my dog chewing on some discarded chewing gum the other day. Dogs will eat anything.

  • pointless martyr on 18/12/2015 - 16:41
    +8

    Dried fruit is quite chewy

    • supnigs super skids on 18/12/2015 - 16:51
      +3

      Ps. Chewing twigs will also brighten teeth too.

      • pointless martyr on 18/12/2015 - 16:55
        +1

        Arent some twigs poisonous?

        • supnigs super skids on 18/12/2015 - 16:56
          +5

          Yeah, might also give you a migraine and die. Sorry sir!

        • argonide on 18/12/2015 - 17:48
          +2

          Twigs from a white willow should help with the migraine.

        • thiosuxtube on 21/12/2015 - 00:59
          +3

          How could they be poisonous? They're natural!

  • Ughhh on 18/12/2015 - 16:53
    +16

    Natural doesnt always = good for you.
    It's really only a problem if you're allergic to it, which you would know from painful ulcers (from memory). Or if you consume huge amounts of it, which such amounts of anything can lead to poisoning, even water.

    • airzone on 18/12/2015 - 17:02
      +4

      Bellabonna tea is natural and is very good for people… who want to die.

    • PVA on 20/12/2015 - 17:59
      +3

      exactly. Dog poo is all natural but I am sure it's not great for you to eat.

    • Utopian on 21/12/2015 - 08:33
      +1

      It can even lead to water?! ARGH!

  • c64 on 18/12/2015 - 17:19
    +6

    i don't think there is conclusive evidence to say that Aspartame is particularly bad. everything has a toxicity associated with it. if you are concerned, don't eat the stuff. also, apparently all artificial sweeteners confuse the brain.

    • cameldownunder on 18/12/2015 - 17:47

      Right you are. The body thinks Calories are about to be digested, burns the remaining sugar in the blood, no calories are coming because it's an artificial sweetener, and you run out of puff.

      • macrocephalic on 22/12/2015 - 08:47

        If that were true then it would actually be excellent for dieting. Think about what your body burns for fuel once all the easy carbohydrates are used up.

    • gwong on 18/12/2015 - 18:20
      +10

      CORRECT.

      "Aspartame is a highly studied food additive with decades of research showing that it is safe for human consumption. As expected, the research is complex making it possible to cherry pick and misinterpret individual studies in order to fear monger. But the totality of research, reviewed by many independent agencies and expert panels, supports the safety of aspartame.

      A conspiracy to hide the risks of aspartame, however, remains a popular internet urban legend that will likely not disappear anytime soon."

      https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/aspartame-truth-vs-fict…

      • mattyman on 19/12/2015 - 10:38
        +11

        The sugar or corn industry is America is huge. They funnel money to bunky researchers to come up with "scientific studies" about competitors products.

        Around 10-15 years ago the World Health Organisation was going to release a recommendation that people reduce their sugar intake to 2 teaspoons a day. The corn industry lobbied the US government (corn industry is so big they have a lot of clout) and the government threatened to cut funding if they released that statement. Since then the WHO has completed more research and is now recommending 1 teaspoon of sugar a day. Because the obesity epidemic is out of control in the US and is actually costing the government a lot of money, the lobbying hasn't worked this time.

        Why have I said all of this as it's unrelated to the OP? My point is that big industry/business will do anything to make profits. Don't go to "health" sites for your information on products like aspartame. Find proper PEER-REVIEWED scientific articles because all of those articles find that there is no evidence that any of the claims made about aspartame are true.

        • gwong on 19/12/2015 - 21:37
          +2

          https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org isn't a health site.

        • ankor on 21/12/2015 - 18:58
          +1

          @gwong:

          What?! My facebook sceince dgree is worth nothing?!

        • Charity on 21/12/2015 - 21:19

          Even peer-reviewed articles are often faked these days. Even Nature took down a bundle of them a few months ago… Not before they were cited many times by national media agencies. lol

          Kind of like IMDB movie ratings now… every big budget movie has a great rating - regardless of how many bad reviews!

        • macrocephalic on 22/12/2015 - 08:50

          @ankor: a Facebook BS degree? I think I might know some others who have that…

        • gwong on 22/12/2015 - 10:30

          @ankor: huh?

        • ankor on 22/12/2015 - 19:19

          @gwong:

          It was a snide dig at people who read a few things on Facebook, or spend 20minutes at Google University in between cat videos, and then suddenly become experts. The poor spelling was supposed to make it more obvious that I was trolling..

          Nevermind :P

        • gwong on 23/12/2015 - 08:32

          @ankor: whoooosh

    • spychiatrist on 18/12/2015 - 22:01
      -3

      Each time I drink products that contain aspartame - diet, zero, Cali shandy, (not Pepsi Max though), the tummy and brain feels different

      • OBEY YOUR MASTERS on 19/12/2015 - 10:12
        +2

        Pepsi max definitely makes me feel off. I don't drink the stuff.

        • bargdebarg on 20/12/2015 - 16:12
          -8

          Unless you're black

  • chumlee on 18/12/2015 - 17:55

    Chew on mint leaves

    • PVA on 20/12/2015 - 18:01
      +1

      yep, I love those lollies. lots of sugar though.

    • macrocephalic on 22/12/2015 - 08:52

      Minty fresh breath coupled with green things stuck in your teeth constantly. I think that's a winner.

  • iridiumstem on 18/12/2015 - 18:21
    +11

    Phenylalanine /ˌfɛnᵊlˈæləˌniːn/ (abbreviated as Phe or F)[2] is an α-amino acid with the formula C6H5CH2CH(NH2)COOH. This essential amino acid is classified as neutral, and nonpolar because of the inert and hydrophobic nature of the benzyl side chain. The L-isomer is used to biochemically form proteins, coded for by DNA. The codons for L-phenylalanine are UUU and UUC. Phenylalanine is a precursor for tyrosine, the monoamine neurotransmitters dopamine, norepinephrine (noradrenaline), and epinephrine (adrenaline), and the skin pigment melanin.

    Phenylalanine is found naturally in the breast milk of mammals. It is used in the manufacture of food and drink products and sold as a nutritional supplement for its reputed analgesic and antidepressant effects. It is a direct precursor to the neuromodulator phenethylamine, a commonly used dietary supplement.

    Also on Aspartame:

    The safety of aspartame has been the subject of several political and medical controversies, United States congressional hearings and Internet hoaxes[3][4][5] since its initial approval for use in food products by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1981.[6]:2 The European Food Safety Authority concluded in its 2013 re-evaluation that aspartame and its breakdown products are safe for human consumption at current levels of exposure,[7] corroborating other medical reviews.[8] However, because its breakdown products include phenylalanine, aspartame must be avoided by people with the genetic condition phenylketonuria (PKU).

    Straight from Wikipedia

    If you want something more professional:
    Butchko, H. H., Stargel, W. W., Comer, C. P., Mayhew, D. A., Benninger, C., Blackburn, G. L., … & Leon, A. S. (2002). Aspartame: review of safety. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 35(2), S1-S93.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230002…

    Copying straight from the abstract:

    The safety testing of aspartame has gone well beyond that required to evaluate the safety of a food additive. When all the research on aspartame, including evaluations in both the premarketing and postmarketing periods, is examined as a whole, it is clear that aspartame is safe, and there are no unresolved questions regarding its safety under conditions of intended use.

    • shortblack9 on 19/12/2015 - 09:58
      -2

      True to your name… you have oversimplified :-)

      The study is funded by Nutrasweet, the inventors of aspartame… and thus inherently biased towards their product.

      As a pharmacist, I have seen quite a number of issues associated with artificial sweeteners. It is not common, but there is a sub-set of the population that does not tolerate them well. Unfortunately, in all of my reading and practice, I have not been able to find a pattern.

      • iridiumstem on 19/12/2015 - 10:19
        +4

        In terms of research funding, as far as I remember over 50% of the research funding is from private sector (i.e. pharmaceutical companies, etc etc). I believe the split was 50:50 in early 2000s (this was from a book that focused on economy though) and I think it's funded more by the private sector nowadays. So by that logic, half of the research papers are simply full of biases.

        If you are a pharmacist, you'd probably be able to read the article and analyse the review article (if you could be bothered with reading 93 pages of paper). I remember faintly of reading about "vulnerable population subset" (it was psychological disorder related if my memory is serving me correctly). Unfortunately, my insomnia/messed up sleeping pattern is making me slightly too tired to care enough to actually read the article again to find where I've read it. Basically, I think their conclusion was, double blind test showed no pattern and the baseline for them were different from normal population to begin with or something like that.

        I do agree that they probably had some bias, I wasn't expecting that kind of strong wording from a review paper, especially on the abstract.

        Though, I personally think it's safer than what some people are crediting them to be at the very least. Some people are simply treating the term "artificial" to what some people would refer to as "poisonous".

        I did go through few of the research papers that apparently were not funded by the private sector and that apparnetly show negative effects of the Aspartame consumption few comments below, 5 most recent articles from Dr. Walton's list of non-private funded articles that showed negative effects. I personally thought they were questionable. If any of the research papers made me question the validity of the review article I've skimmed through, I would've looked into it further. They didn't.

        • shortblack9 on 19/12/2015 - 10:32
          +2

          There seems to be an inherent bias in each researcher, whether they are for something or against it. I think curiosity is no longer for curiosity sake and the joy of gaining knowledge :-(

        • iridiumstem on 19/12/2015 - 10:49
          +1

          @shortblack9: One thing I've learnt from Economics is, selfish behaviours can be beneficial as well.

          Those people who would be most determined are those who wants to prove something; self value can cause people to act more passionately, for better or for worse. What should happen is it would still propel the boundaries of our knowledge, with everyone fighting over what is right and what is wrong, which should be settled with scientific evidences supporting one side or the other.

          It's not the perfect solution, but I think it's a solid answer for the situation with certain limitations; No one can be truly "unbiased", in my opinion. I shouldn't be this proud of that pun, but I am. I need more sleep and less caffeine in my system.

      • macrocephalic on 22/12/2015 - 08:56

        The pattern is well established: https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/conditionsandtrea…

        • shortblack9 on 22/12/2015 - 09:44

          I was not speaking of phenylketonuria… I was speaking of "intolerance", eg. causing a headache, or some other symptom.

          PK is a lot more than an intolerance, exposure to phenylalanine can potentially be lethal.

  • frostman on 18/12/2015 - 20:42
    -6

    The safety testing of aspartame has gone well beyond that required to evaluate the safety of a food additive

    The can't be entirely accurate. It's the same shit with Mobile phones, since they've only been out since ~95 and more commonly used in the early 2000, this means there's only 15 years of use of mobiles. That's not enough to determine really, what effects on the body

    Same as these artificial sweeteners, I mean they're artificial. The body will not know how to extract them, they may react badly in the body or release/break down into bad chemical compounds.

    • iridiumstem on 18/12/2015 - 21:26
      +8

      First of all, FDA approved of its use in 1981. Meaning that they would've gone through testings that these food additives go through before that as well, so 15 years is underestimating how much it has been tested and how long it has been available for. The review paper I've linked was states that it was done 20 years after the approval.

      Also for your concern, to quote what the research paper said in the preface:

      Aspartame is a simple molecule, which is hydrolyzed entirely to its constituent amino acids, aspartate and phenylalanine, and methanol which are then absorbed. The constituents of aspartame are also derived in much larger amounts from common foods.

      Anyways, yeah, I think they did use a strong word. However, safety of many substances are done via researches and studies on them basically. Sugar, salt, mint, caffeine whatever natural substance you use for cooking are lethal in large dosage. Water can cause shocks given you drink large quantity in short amount of time. What is poisonous is poisonous and what is not is not (more than often poison is in dosage but moving on from that). Whether they are natural or not really don't matter. There are naturally occuring poisons out there, some of which we use, even in cuisine. There are artificial substances we use that are not poisonous.

      Aspartame has gone through multitude of reseaches and reviews, the concerns you have are very vague at best and they would've done studies on them. The fear that the phrase "artificial" brings is related to "untested" in my opinion. Aspartame has gone through large number of testing in large field of research (the review paper I've bought up has specialists ranging from Allergy, Brain Tumors, Long-Term Safety in Humans etc etc) and the review pretty much covers most, if not all, researches that have been conducted on aspartame up till that point.

      I honestly don't think it's not safe. To be honest, I am holding an opinion that it's probably safer than some of the natural products out there simply because there has been so much research done on this. There are products with natural substances that have not been tested, I'd be more wary of those than something that has been tested for 36+ years.

      • shortblack9 on 19/12/2015 - 10:08
        +3

        FDA approved its use in 1981, but considered it GRAS (generally regarded as safe). This is does mean it went through any form of truly rigorous safety testing. To prove GRAS, a company only has to show an absence of harm in line with their suggested "dose"/usage. You'll note that the dosing of the substance is hugely under-estimated when you see the prevalence of its use.

        In addition, the multitude of tests again were mostly funded by Nutrasweet, which has a vested interest in "proving" the safety of the substance.

        I am still skeptical of all of these studies. I know that they design the studies for success. any studies that were not favorable did not get published.

        FYI - I have been an artificial sweetener industry insider and also a pharmaceutical industry insider.

    • mattyman on 19/12/2015 - 10:42

      Mobiles were commonly used 20 years ago. Nearly everyone I knew had one. I've had my mobile number since '95.

    • Roman Sandstorm on 21/12/2015 - 01:45
      +5

      Same as these artificial sweeteners, I mean they're artificial. The body will not know how to extract them

      Have you not read any of the replies in the thread you started?

      There has been much intelligent discussion of the safety of Aspartame, as well as links and assistance to find your own information.

      Your pejorative use of the word 'artificial' shows that you seem have succumbed to the 'naturalistic fallacy'; a concept that if something is 'natural' it inherently must be either good for you, or at least not bad for you. Tell that to belladonna, or arsenic, or botulinum, or asbestos, ad infinitum. There are a million 'natural' substances which can be totally bad for human health. And ten million synthetic or 'artificial' substances which are harmless, beneficial, or even life-saving for humans. (Exaggeration for effect…)

      It's the same shit with Mobile phones… That's not enough to determine really, what effects on the body

      OK. So you are really plunging into Luddite, science-denying, conspiracy territory here.

      Yes, it is possible that there are some extreme long term effects of mobile phone use. It is also possible there are deleterious effects due to household electric current. After all, it's only been around 100-odd years. (And human life expectancy has declined enormously ever since the first electric lights came into use.) Oh, and then there's agriculture. It's just unnatural for humans to eat grains. And it's only been 10,000 years or so. The negative effects must have been massive on our species. We must all have lived for centuries in our pre-agriculture days. Oh geez… what about cooked meat? A disastrous artificial technological advance for humans. So unnatural. Yeah, definitely better off 80,000 years ago. Without any of this new-fangled stuff.

      But my cheap sarcasm aside… is is exceedingly easy for you to resolve these matters. As you already seem convinced (regardless of evidence either way) that artificial sweeteners and mobile phones are bad for you, don't use/consume them. Duh. Your brain will be free from zapping radiation, and your body free from gut-rot.

  • 50cent on 18/12/2015 - 21:24
    +1

    I stopped chewing Extra a long time ago, its garbage and full of artificial crap.

    Check this link out, tastes much better and no artificial sweeteners in there too.

    http://www.naturallysweet.com.au/our-products/dental-product…

    Epic Fresh Dental Gum

  • ESEMCE on 18/12/2015 - 23:17
    +11

    You realise Phenylalanine is an Amino Acid right?
    And that most, if not all of the proteins in your body will include Phenylalanine?
    In other words, Phenylalanine is perfectly natural and you'd be dead without it no question.

    The fear mongering about Aspartame is solely about the Methanol.
    And fear mongering it most certainly is!
    The amount of Methanol you'll generate from digesting the Aspartame in an entire pack of gum is less than you'll get from eating a cold storage Apple.
    ie assuming you're a normal person who hasn't converted a substantial portion of your dietary intake to gum chewing, then you have nothing to worry about..

    Have you heard the one about DiHydrogen Monoxide?
    Now that's a killer you should start worrying about especially with all the Pool/River/Ocean activity that happens through the summer months!

    • Gnostikos on 19/12/2015 - 02:32
      +5

      The fear mongering about Aspartame is solely about the Methanol.

      Methanol?

      Who gives a shit about Methanol?

      For nearly 21 years the FDA refused to approve Aspartame, not only because it's not safe for human consumption but because they wanted the company who created Aspartame (Searle), indicted for fraud.

      Aspartame's FDA-approval process was absolutely unprecedented, illegal, had major conflicts of interest and involved the following:

      • Being banned initially after a 1980 FDA Board of Inquiry, comprised of three independent scientists, confirmed that it might induce brain tumuors.

      • In animal testing, mice fed Aspartame developed holes in their brains and monkeys exposed to it either died or developed chronic Grand Mal seizures.

      • FDA investigators describing Searle's (the company who held the patents for Aspartame) testing procedures for Aspartame safety as shoddy, full of inaccuracies and manipulated test data and saying they had quote: "never seen anything as bad as Searle's testing."

      • Being the only time in the FDA's history that they requested a criminal investigation of a manufacturer for knowingly misrepresenting findings and making false statements in Aspartame safety tests, in 1977.

      • While the above-mentioned grand jury probe was underway, Sidley & Austin, the law firm representing Searle, began negotiating directly with the U.S. Attorney in charge of the investigation against Searle, Samuel Skinner. (Samuel Skinner later left the U.S. Attorney's office and took a job with Searle's law firm. His withdrawal and resignation stalled the Searle grand jury investigation for so long that the statute of limitations on the charges ran out and the case had to be dropped.)

      • Then-CEO of Searle, Donald Rumsfeld (yes, the Bush-Administration Rumsfeld who helped sell the world the WMDs hoax) vowing to "call in his markers," (read: Washington bum-buddies) to get it approved and stating in no uncertain terms in a Searle sales meeting that he would make a big push to get Aspartame approved with the help of his political clout in Washington, rather than scientific means. (Rummy being a member of Congress and Secretary of Defense under Ford had serious political clout in Washington, which has some well-known revolving doors between the Federal Government and the Dept. of Health).

      (Just FYI "calling in your markers" is a gambling expression, meaning when you run out of money, you ask someone else for a "marker" or loan, to continue playing; fairly obvious what he meant by that.)

      • Newly-appointed FDA commissioner (literally the day after Reagan's inauguration), Arthur Hayes Hull, installing a sixth member on the commission looking into the additive, after it became clear the comission would uphold the ban on Aspartame 3-2. This resulted in the commission becoming dead-locked and him personally overruling their recommendations and breaking the tie in Aspartame's favor. It's also worth mentioning Hayes had no previous history of dealing with the science of food additives.

      • Arthur resigned in 1983 and then took a job with Searle's and Monsanto's public relations firm (Burson-Marsteller) who hired Hayes as senior scientific consultant.

      • The National Soft Drink Association (NSDA) urging the FDA to delay approval of Aspartame for carbonated beverages pending further testing because Aspartame was so unstable in liquid form that at ~30C it broke down into Diketopiperazine (DKP) and Formaldehyde, both of which are known toxins.

      • Taking a total span of 21 years to finally get a green light from the FDA after several back-and-forth FDA findings and some serious reshuffling of FDA leadership, when the FDA finally removed all restrictions from Aspartame in 1996, allowing it to be used in all foods.

      • Oh and this fun little nugget:

      "Survey of aspartame studies: correlation of outcome and funding sources," 1998, unpublished: http://www.dorway.com/peerrev.html Walton found 166 separate published studies in the peer reviewed medical literature, which had relevance for questions of human safety. The 74 studies funded by industry all (100%) attested to aspartame's safety, whereas of the 92 non-industry funded studies, 84 (91%) identified a problem. Six of the seven non-industry funded studies that were favorable to aspartame safety were from the FDA, which has a public record that shows a strong pro-industry bias.

      Monsanto by the way, acquired Searle in 1985. Monsanto is a company (read: multi-national empire unto itself) that you really should know a thing or two about if you at all partake in a modern, processed food-laden diet.

      And fear mongering it most certainly is!

      Or maybe you're the guy telling everyone the canary in the coal mine is just sleeping it off.

      Have you heard the one about DiHydrogen Monoxide?

      That joke wasn't funny 5 years ago, and it's really not funny now. Grow up.

      • bargainslut on 19/12/2015 - 02:38
        -1

        Great post Amar89.

        • ESEMCE on 19/12/2015 - 09:38
          +13

          No, it's a shit post spouting off Internet "facts" and ignoring the glaring simplicity of the molecule to the point that the only toxic component of Aspartame is brushed off with "Who gives a (profanity) about Methanol"

        • Speckled Jim on 19/12/2015 - 12:20
          +1

          Much of which can be seen in the documentary Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World.

          Suggested if you want to share with others who have an aversion to reading.

        • bargainslut on 19/12/2015 - 12:25

          @mcmonte: It's a good watch, a factual account of what is going on. I highly recommend it to all open minded people:)

        • furiousgeorge on 19/12/2015 - 16:29

          yep good post mate.nice to know its not all sheeple on here.
          donald- 9/11 conspirator-rumsfeld, id like to add.

        • bargainslut on 19/12/2015 - 22:12

          @scubacoles: fact (n.) Look up fact at Dictionary.com
          1530s, "action, anything done," especially "evil deed,"

        • ESEMCE on 19/12/2015 - 22:55
          +11

          @bargainslut:
          Most of the commenters on this thread need to pass Year 12 Chemistry as a minimum (possibly even 1st or 2nd Year Chem)…
          After they understand the structure of Aspartame and how it's metabolised, then they'll then be far more suitably equipped to analyse the veracity of any research or literature review, for or against Aspartame.

          The fact that the OP points the finger at Phenylalanine as the bad thing highlights the level of misunderstanding in this entire thread.

        • Gnostikos on 20/12/2015 - 19:41

          @scubacoles: Except we don't need to. The FDA already analysed the veracity of Aspartame safety testing and declared it unsafe multiple times (before it was co-opted by special interests). That is precisely the point of the FDA (or was); so that not just armchair chemists who like to ramble about the minutiae of formulas and methodology and industry-funded shills with an agenda can have a say in what's safe and what isn't.

          When it comes down to your scientific credentials or any of the posters on OzBargain versus that of the FDA; I'm going to easily side with the FDA as having a more credible background to authoritatively analyze something like Aspartame, but thanks for trying and bringing your all-important Year 12 Chemistry knowledge to the table.

        • ESEMCE on 20/12/2015 - 20:32
          +9

          @Amar89:
          I have slightly more than Year 12 Chemistry to fall back on..
          Funny how you trust the FDA to get it right when they agree with your view, but not when they don't.
          That's one of the great things about science.. You've gotta be prepared to look at the evidence again and again and change your opinion when the evidence swings.
          You choose to consider that change of opinion as a conspiracy. I consider it logical. I also trust the FDA to get it right, but I don't choose sides…

        • Telios on 20/12/2015 - 21:06
          +2

          @scubacoles: But he used dot points scubacoles, that must mean his argument has legitimacy

          I can barely be bothered to post in these sort of threads given the vast amount of pseudo-science that gets thrown around…

          But I will just say that I seriously doubt multiple highly respected and recognized testing bodies, both nationally and internationally have reviewed Aspartame numerous times and found no harmful effects at the suggested maximum consumption rates.

          http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/additives/aspartame…

          People keep ranting about the FDA like they are the only ones capable of testing anything, apparently ignoring the fact that approval status in Australia is independent of FDA decisions…But I'm sure several internet randoms are smarter and produce better quantitative data than entire research bodies.

        • ESEMCE on 21/12/2015 - 08:54
          -1

          @Telios:
          More importantly than Food Standards Aus/NZ (who do rely heavily on FDA data), the EU and Japanese authorities (especially the Japanese with their positive list) have found no issue.

          I'm not saying you should ditch water and drink Diet Coke or Sprite instead (and it'd be the acid intake that would worry me more than the Aspartame if you did), or give up food and just chew Extra instead.
          Just saying that there's plenty more nasties out in the world that should be significantly higher on the list of worries.

      • iridiumstem on 19/12/2015 - 04:27
        +7

        I actually genuinely got interested in this (more specifically, I abhor anyone who claims they are scientists while spew out their biased views, so I had two reasons to look at it). I had to look it up and see whether I was biased and/or whether Walton is biased. To do so I've searched few articles that Walton has claimed that were "non-industry funded articles that have identified problems". I've looked at the recent articles + one of Walton's latest article on the list. The reason why I am not looking at all of them is simple. I can't be bothered to look at everything (I am not getting paid for it) and latest ones tend to build upon many ideas from the past experiments.

        I have to admit that this guy looks like he is cherry picking the research papers like an undergrad who just want to fudge everything to what he likes. The review I've mentioned above has 560 articles that it referenced. Compare that to approx. 166 that he is putting forward.

        Anyways, here are 5 latest articles from the list of non-industry funded articles that have identified problems, I've simply searched 5 articles on the bottom of the list he've given. To find the latest article by Walton from the list, I've simply looked up Walton on the list. I've used Google Scholar which would be using the database from ANU Library which "provides access to more than 6.3 million electronic resources including full text journal articles" according to ANU.

        Trocho C, Pardo R, Rafecas I, Virgili J, Remesar X, Fernandez-Lopez JA, Alemany M, Formaldehyde Derived From Dietary Aspartame Binds to Tissue Components In Vivo. Life Sciences 1998;63(5);337-349.

        Problems with analysis; to quote Tephly, T. R. (1999). Comments on the purported generation of formaldehyde and adduct formation from the sweetener aspartame. Life sciences, 65(13), PL157-PL160.

        "These authors assume that the methanol carbon of aspartame generates formaldehyde which then forms adducts with protein, DNA, and RNA. Doses employed range widely. In this letter, studies which have been published previously and which were not cited by these authors are reviewed in order to put into perspective the disposition of methanol and formaldehyde in monkeys and humans, species relevant to the toxicity of methanol and its toxic metabolite, formic acid."

        "We believe that the normal flux of one carbon moieties whether derived from pectin, aspartame or fruit juices is a physiologic phenomenon and not a
        toxic event. Methylation of proteins, DNA and RNA is known whereas formaldehyde adduct formation in vivo has yet to be proven to be generated from aspartame. Based on the experimental data presented, aspartame appears not to constitute a hazard. "

        This was mentioned on the review I've mentioned as well.

        Dr. Olney has 7 of the 91 articles under his name. The latest one quoted on the list is looking at correlation.

        Olney JW, Farber NB, Spitznagel E, Robins L, Increasing Brain Tumor Rates: Is There a Link to Aspartame? Journal of Neuropathology and Experimental Neurology 1996;55(11);1115-1123.

        First of all, you cannot extract causation from correlation alone, that's high school level science. It's like saying the trend of temperature rising is due to reduction in number of pirates.

        To quote the review I've bought up beforehand, which also addresses this:

        "Increases in brain tumor rates have been primarily in the elderly, especially the very elderly (Muiret al., 1994; Greig et al., 1990; Werner et al., 1995; Davis et al., 1991). For example, Greig et al.(1990) reported a 500% increase in brain tumors in people 85 years and older…

        …This issue was critically reviewed by Modan et al. (1992), who concluded that the observed increases were not “real” but were related to enhanced detection resulting from “availability of more sophisticated noninvasive diagnostic technology; change in the attitude toward care of the elderly; and introduction of support programs such as Medicare that facilitate diagnostic procedures in the elderly.”"

        Roberts HJ, Aspartame as a Cause of Allergic Reactions, Including Anaphylaxis. Arch Intern Med 1996;156(9);1027-8.

        Quoting: Kemp, S. F., & Lockey, R. F. (1996). Aspartame as a Cause of Allergic Reactions, Including Anaphylaxis-Reply. Archives of Internal Medicine, 156(9), 1028-1028.

        "Spices or food additives may have been responsible for the anaphylaxis reported by 15 of our subjects, but double-blind, controlled oral challenges to demonstrate a cause and effect were not done. This leaves in question whether or not a spice or food additive actually caused any of these reactions. Many, if not all, of these subjects may have had episodes of idiopathic anaphylaxis.1

        We have conducted a computerized search of the medical literature and have found no reports of aspartameinduced anaphylaxis. Isolated case reports suggest that aspartame may cause urticaria or angioedema.2,3 Four of six subjects described in one of these reports experienced urticaria following a double-blind challenge with aspartame.3 However, two other double-blind, controlled studies failed to confirm that aspartame."

        Kulczychi A Jr., Aspartame Induced Hives. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 1995;95(2):639-40

        This was mentioned on the review I've mentioned. I couldn't find the article (and I am not willing to go to library and look at it), so here is all I have for it.

        "[Geha et al (1993)] concluded that aspartame and its conversion products (DKP and β-aspartame) were no more likely to cause allergic reactions or other adverse experiences than placebo…
        …This study was criticized by Kulczycki (1995) because he felt that direct appeals to the public for cases was a more valid recruitment method than that used by Geha and co-workers (1993) of contacts with allergists and dermatologists. However, he neglected to take into ac-count the suggestibility and bias introduced by direct appeals to the public; in addition, medical information from consumers in such circumstances is rarely as reliable as that from physicians who have evaluated the patient… Kulczycki (1995) also alleged that no effort was made to control for diet in the Geha et al. (1993) study, although the authors stated that meals were standardized on both treatments. On the contrary, there was no control of his subjects’ diets once they left the clinic, which is especially troublesome in the case of the delayed reactions that he reported…
        Thus, Kulczycki’s criticisms are not appropriate or valid."

        Sonnewald U, Muller T, Unsgaro G, Peterson SB, et. al., Effect of Aspartame on 45 CA Influx and LDH Leakage from Nerve Cells in Culture. Neuroreport 1995 45 CA;6(2);318-320.

        Quoting straight from the review I've mentioned:

        "Sonnewald et al.(1995) reported a dose-dependent increase in calcium in flux and leakage of lactate dehydrogenase from murine brain cell cultures, which he felt confirmed the hypothesis of Pan-Hou regarding effects on the NMDA receptor. However, the relevance of such in vitro work is questionable since brain cells are not exposed to intact aspartame after consumption given its rapid metabolism to its three components before absorption. In contrast, Reilly and Lajtha (1995a,b) evaluated the effect of aspartame 500 mg/day for 30 days on NMDA and total glutamatergic receptor binding kinetics in adult dams and weanlings, which had been exposed to aspartame throughout gestation and lactation."

        I've looked up 5 latest articles that Walton. 4/5 of them were mentioned on the review I've mentioned. Most of them were criticised by other researchers directly. None of which were mentioned by Walton. Do I think it was coincidence? Someone who has access to university library could look it up.

        Also another thing, I was curious about his articles, so I looked him up on the list. Here is what I found on the latest one (out of 3). :

        Walton, R. G., Hudak, R., & Green-Waite, R. J. (1993). Adverse reactions to aspartame: double-blind challenge in patients from a vulnerable population. Biological Psychiatry, 34(1), 13-17.

        Which was also refuted on the review I've mentioned:

        "However, the reliability of this study has been questioned (Schomer et al., 1996; Butchko, 1994). Since the study was terminated after only 11 of the proposed 40 subjects completed their participation, too few subjects were evaluated to obtain any statistically valid conclusions. Further, in order to attain sufficient numbers and a statistically significant result with adverse experiences, complaints were consolidated across a range of unrelated categories, and subjects who had been dropped for adverse experiences were reentered for the analyses of complaints. The methodological errors present in the report and the apparent post hoc analysis are so serious that it is impossible to draw any conclusions from this study."

        Researchers are not idiots. They know how to use Google Scholar. They usually have research assistants who help them gather up research papers on that topic. I've found 5 out of 6 articles, if I include this one as well, on the review I've mentioned, of which were all criticised. Only thing I could conclude from my 1 hour basic googling is, it's likely that Walton is cherry picking the articles to his taste to "prove" his point, judging from how all the cricisms on the articles that I've looked up were ignored (2 of which were directly criticising the articles).

        I could give you a simpler explanation of on the numbers industry related researches, they are the ones who'd be mostly interested in the research relating to their product. Again, researchers are not idiots. Quoting Kesselheim, A. S., Robertson, C. T., Myers, J. A., Rose, S. L., Gillet, V., Ross, K. M., … & Avorn, J. (2012). A randomized study of how physicians interpret research funding disclosures. New England Journal of Medicine, 367(12), 1119-1127.

        "Physicians discriminate among trials of varying degrees of rigor, but industry sponsorship negatively influences their perception of methodologic quality and reduces their willingness to believe and act on trial findings, independently of the trial's quality. These effects may influence the translation of clinical research into practice."

        Researchers are humans, they do make mistakes. That's why there are many failsafe mechanism at work. Peer reviewed means it has to be reviewed by researchers in the field who'd crticise it like hungry hyenas. Review articles review research papers and look validity of the articles out there. What makes Science Science is the fact that everything can and will be refuted if there are enough supporting evidence.

        • Speckled Jim on 19/12/2015 - 13:11

          Researchers are not idiots.

          Researchers are humans, they do make mistakes.

          So they're non-idiotic humans?
          Does that mean we should venerate The Researchers because they're 100% coercion-proof and therefore incorruptible?
          Okaaay.

        • iridiumstem on 19/12/2015 - 13:34
          +3

          @mcmonte: Maybe I was too subtle with what I wanted to say. I looked at the arguments for aspartame's negative effects. I was curious on the validity of his argument, thus whether he is biased and whether I was biased in my opinion. Specifically, I've chosen 5 most recent articles that were mentioned by Walton who claims that there is a trend of pro "negative effect of Aspartame" for those non-private sector sponsored articles.

          All 5 of them had problems with their methodolgy, analysis or/and assumptions. They were criticised by other researchers, some directly, some indirectly, which all were ignored by Walton. Walton's argument on these trends seem to be based on his selection of articles and his idea of supporting and not supporting doesn't seem to care much about whether they are valid or not.

          I don't believe that a cooporation is capable of corrupting every single researchers there is. At best, the pharmaceutical market would be in a cartel state, and the nash equilbrium for the companies involved would be to undercut each other. Other industries who'd benefit from artificial additives like this labelled as unhealthy have incentive to act and invest on researches against these. Governments and non-private sector still supports a "significant" proportion of research. Not to mention, there are incentives for researchers to research against aspartame if it is harmful, fame, guilt, etc etc; not all human act solely on money.

          Unless you believe that all researchers are dumb enough to listen and believe the propaganda that's spread by the pharmaceutical companies, it's impossible for none of them to come up with a solid argument that isn't questionable for 36+ years if it is harmful like some of the articles are suggesting.

          There are measures to pick up biases and problems in findings in scientific research, to name a few, peer review, review articles and refutals from other researchers etc etc. All researches should be done so that it could be replicated, and many researchers do try to replicate some of the researches to prove their point. It's not foolproof, researchers are humans. That said, 36+ years I believe is long enough time.

        • Gnostikos on 19/12/2015 - 17:06
          +2

          @Oversimplified:

          I don't believe that a cooporation is capable of corrupting every single researchers there is. At best, the pharmaceutical market would be in a cartel state, and the nash equilbrium for the companies involved would be to undercut each other. Other industries who'd benefit from artificial additives like this labelled as unhealthy have incentive to act and invest on researches against these. Governments and non-private sector still supports a "significant" proportion of research. Not to mention, there are incentives for researchers to research against aspartame if it is harmful, fame, guilt, etc etc; not all human act solely on money.

          Which seems more likely to you?

          That a multi-billion dollar a year industry wants to convince consumers that their product which they've become so heavily invested into, is safe, or that as you claim, a massive smear campaign against artificial sweeteners is being perpetuated by hundreds of unconnected investigators, scientists, institutes and independent researchers all over the world, for no real benefit?

          Welcome to Capitalism. It's not the first time something bad for human health has made astronomical profits and has been championed as safer than water itself.

          The world is in universal consensus that smoking is harmful to human health, and yet despite tobacco never claiming more than a peak of 10 million souls annually (in other words far less than 1% of global population), nobody would seriously try to claim that the risks are insignificant enough to warrant its widespread re-adoption.

          There are people who've inhaled more than a lifetime's worth of cigarette smoke and lived quite normal and long lives (though obviously biologically-degraded in many ways); while others perished well before their time in a miserable degenerative state.

          The effect artificial sweeteners can have on an individual has too many variables to be reliably calculated. The collective effect on human health is bad news, like accumulative exposure to radiation (An X-Ray or two won't kill you but they won't make you healthier or reduce your chances of cancer, that's for sure), and we shouldn't tolerate their consumption because they have not been impartially studied enough.

          The science is only as good as the funding allows it to be.

          Experts cost money, studies cost money. An "expert opinion" is one that has a lot of money riding on it, and that money comes from a variety of sources, some noble in intent, others completely corrupt. Nothing puts science on a pedestal merely because some scientists are choosing to work on cancer vaccines or the cure for AIDS; it's still a multi-billion dollar industry with more at stake strategically than the mere plebs can fathom.

          In my experience people who tend to demand ridiculously high burdens-of-proofs predicated on methodologies they don't even understand couldn't actually name a peer-reviewed study they've read in the last 3 years (unless it was for tertiary education). Part of the problem is that to the laymen, white lab coats and thick glasses equals science, so they're more likely to trust infantile, carefully-sanitised pop culture science delivered in bite-size doses of politically-correct conformity rather than actual facts that are now dusty, forgotten pieces of Congressional transcripts and formal reports.

          I have to admit that this guy looks like he is cherry picking the research papers like an undergrad who just want to fudge everything to what he likes.

          And you've cherry-picked 5 sources that you found easy to discredit. I cherry-picked some facts about Aspartame which are highly-damning and quite irrefutable. You chose to ignore all of those facts and focus on 5 studies out of 166 to make a case that Aspartame is safe.

          So in actuality, you've done nothing but show exactly how industry-funded scientists operate. Cherry-picking to counter cherry-picking. Congratulations for demonstrating the very same "mistakes" that your above-mentioned researchers make.

          You are no closer to disproving why Aspartame had such a troubled and inexplicably sustained FDA approval process.

          Unlike your awfully optimistic contention that perhaps it was just one big, silly accident that allowed this enigmatic and mysterious chemical to slip through the cracks at the FDA when no one was looking, because "researchers make mistakes" and the notorious anti-sweetener Mafia is just putting on another witch-hunt against those poor, multi-billion-a-year industries who definitely don't have any other skeletons in their closets besides Aspartame (Monsanto is literally a lightning rod for controversy); to me it is glaringly obvious that a concerted, highly organised interest group comprised of men up high really, really wanted Aspartame put into mass food production for reasons we can't fully understand, and they would do anything necessary to ensure it happened.

          But sure, you continue to pick over the excruciatingly-anal retentive minutiae of a few studies here and there until the cows come home, as if that makes or break the case for Aspartame's legality and legitimacy, when essentially, the FDA was bypassed by a bunch of thugs and cronies who simply kept telling them "Aspartame is safe".

          Way to miss the forest.

          This is like the researchers still investigating JFK assassination today, mulling over which direction his head rolled after he was shot.
          His head rolling backwards or forwards does not negate the fact that a sitting US President was assassinated in broad day-light and the course of history was irrevocably altered.

          Aspartame is being chugged by the masses in unquantifiable amounts and people are still want to argue about who might have been biased.

          I had to look it up and see whether I was biased and/or whether Walton is biased.

          Well I have some oversimplified news for your Oversimplified. We're all biased. Unfortunately the pro-Aspartame bias is so much more well-funded and well-publicised that at this point, it wouldn't even matter if conclusive proof was discovered that linked it to human death (which realistically has happened); it simply has too much money tied up in it for anyone to want to derail the state-backed Aspartame gospel.

          The same way Philip Morris International is still suing nation-states for publicising anti-smoking health campaigns; despite the fact Philip Morris has actually admitted many times smoking is harmful to human health. Philip Morris can't stop making billions of dollars in revenue even if the product they sell kills people; that's not how infinite growth and Capitalism works.

        • iridiumstem on 19/12/2015 - 21:39
          +1

          @Amar89: I will put it very simply why I think the system of pharmaceutical companies being corrupt cannot explain the safety issues. You are arguing that it's very "well funded". OK.

          Basically, you have a game in which the agents play. The game would include 4 agents, 2 tables and many lines of symbols which are hard to type, so I will write down the premises. There are two possible condition, aspartame being harmful and not being harmful. You get 4 agents acting on accordingly to their benefits (I assume every agents are "corrupt", or more reasonably, there are no regulations imposed to the game). You get industries that benefit from having aspartame being labelled unhealthy (i.e. agricultural sectors, media, etc etc). You get companies within the pharmaceutical industry as well. You get researchers (who's number would be increasing at certain rate, as number of graduates are increasing) and you get the government. Within the pharmaceutical industry, the pareto efficient solution for them would be to collude, a cartel. However, cartels have issues in where nash equilibrium is usually to undercut (i.e. if I prove that your product is harmful and sell my product, I gain benefit of harming your business (which may increase my profit as monopolistic competition means the market is shared somewhat) and I gain benefit from getting your sales (i.e. I can sell other products that are substitute goods). Researchers have other agendas as well. Government and non-private sector is still supporting significant proportion of the funds, and if I make name out of exposing what aspartame is, I'd become famous. I could work for other companies that work against that pharmaceutical company who produce aspartame, I could stay in universities as a lecturer. If I am retiring, who cares about the pharmaceutical company's money, when I probably have enough pension money to get by. Other industries that would benefit from removing Aspartame from the shelf would invest on the researches that go against aspartame. Basically I am giving you few examples in which non-altruistic researchers benefit from acting against the pharmaceutical company with the patent. Governments have two choices, either to accept the money given by the pharmaceutical companies or not. Governments reaction would depend on the cost of accepting the money, which would be associated with the risk of being caught.

          It's getting convoluted, but basically, nash equilbrium for the game when aspartame is harmful would be dependent on mainly on the researchers as an agent. A pharmaceutical company has to be able to offer more than other industries who'd benefit and other companies within the pharmaceutical industry and they'd require total control over the researches. As an agent who solely wants to maximise his/her profit, the researchers will publish research against aspartame if it is harmful like you are suggesting. I think billion dollar is too small of a profit margin for them to have that much control, if anything, as the cost would increase (number of researchers increase, which increases the risk of getting caught, which means you have to offset it by offering more money to the government), at some point the the pharmaceutical company who has patent would give up and research something better if aspartame is truly harmful and the cost would be "large" to begin with.

          So in short, I personally believe it's more plausible for the game to end where aspartame is not economical for the the pharmaceutical company who produces them to give up at one point. It's the one with least assumptions. Yes, it's a simple model but I think it would represent the non-regulated market with few companies with no control from government. Adding more assumptions like human behaviour, would only skew the result to my favour in my opinion, because it would give researchers agendas such as feeling of guilt, desire to be the right one, etc. It adds more risk for the government, which would reflect in higher cost.

          There are two explanations, one involves a complete dominance of the industry, researchers and all the failsafe mechanisms in scientific field and government to fail. The other involves at the very least less of that.

          If you are going to argue that I've cherry picked what I've searched, you could repeat what I've done and see whether I am right or wrong. The beauty of scientific research (mine isn't, but I've tried to follow its format a bit) is, you can repeat what I did. I chose research papers which were most recent on his list. If anything, it was to his advantage, it's the articles that he thought was not supporting the aspartame. If you think I've listed articles of my choice instead of his articles, you can see whether that is the case. If you think I should've chosen articles differently I'd be happy to know why and how. I've chosen those articles on his list, most recent ones, on the basis that the process is tedious (looking at all research paper is borderlining a workload I'd put in for starting a paper for which I would only do if I am getting paid) and recent ones tend to include many ideas from the past. I've found all of them refuted by researchers directly or indirectly in one way or another which were not mentioned at all. Again, you can repeat what I've done and tell me whether I've lied. You can read what I've found, I've pasted what I thought was the refutal, and you can tell me whether that makes sense or not. Again, if you think I've made things up, I've included the articles I've looked up.

          If you think what I've done is wrong, you can look basically repeat any part of it yourself as I've given you all the context in how I did it.

        • Roman Sandstorm on 21/12/2015 - 02:14
          +4

          @Amar89:

          That a multi-billion dollar a year industry wants to convince consumers that their product which they've become so heavily invested into, is safe,

          You seem to be completely either misunderstanding or simply ignoring one of Oversimplified's main points. You seem to think that 'Big Artificial Sweetener' is such an overwhelming powerful cabal that it is capable of destroying all opposition.

          But, as Oversimplified points out, there would be enormous profits to be made in genuinely finding significant fault in Aspartame. Competing 'Big Artificial Sweetener' companies could undermine Aspartame, and promote their own alternatives. Scientists could make their careers on a fantastic contribution to human health.

          But in over a third of a century, these things have not happened.

        • Milkywayss on 21/12/2015 - 15:22

          @Amar89:

          An X-Ray or two won't kill you but they won't make you healthier or reduce your chances of cancer, that's for sure

          Well actually… Radiation Hormesis

      • ESEMCE on 19/12/2015 - 09:36
        +1

        Why Methanol?
        Cause Aspartame is Phenylalanine and Aspartic Acid (both amino acids which are essential for life) joined by a Molecule of Methanol.
        The body digests Aspartame into these 3 components.
        Unless you're Pheylketonuric, then the body is happy to use the amino acids to make proteins, so absoluetley no poisonous effects there.. Which leaves Methanol as the only potentially toxic by product.

        If, as you say, you agree that the worry about Methanol is not at all a worry "Who gives a (profanity) about Methanol"
        Then your health concerns must logically fall to the Amino Acid by products.

      • KiLLUMiN4Ti on 19/12/2015 - 12:52
        +1

        "Or maybe you're the guy telling everyone the canary in the coal mine is just sleeping it off."

        Hahahahaha!!

      • frostman on 21/12/2015 - 08:34

        ^ a decent argument.

      • rt1111 on 21/12/2015 - 09:29
        +3

        The National Soft Drink Association (NSDA) urging the FDA to delay approval of Aspartame for carbonated beverages pending further testing because > Aspartame was so unstable in liquid form that at ~30C it broke down into Diketopiperazine (DKP) and Formaldehyde, both of which are known toxins.

        Not 30 degrees, but 180 degrees. I don't think your body gets that warm <rolls eyes>

        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11442263

  • bargainslut on 19/12/2015 - 00:00
    +2

    If the FDA approved it then it MUST be safe, hahahaha!

  • RickoWest on 19/12/2015 - 12:39
    +2

    In December 2012 I became seriously debilitated with an inflammatory reaction cause by bad cartilage in my knees.. I was healthy and working in the mines immediately prior and didn't exhibit much reaction to said cartilage damage.. After 2 and a half years of countless specialists, MRI's, drugs and an operation the cause was still an unknown to me… Earlier this year I found that my knees were suddenly on recovery during my wedding and honeymoon.. Strangely I just thought it may have been attributed, as a wild theory, to me cutting out Diet Coke/Coke Zero in my diet… I was always health conscious and thinking drinking sugar free was the way to go… After trial and error over a 6 month period I have nailed it down to aspartame, now I don't have the funds to further explore and give definitive proof at this time, however it will be in my future to do so now I can get back into the workforce, and albeit life.. It would come to a point during this trial and error period that after one can of coke zero and some light activity, within hours my knee (primarily the right with the worse cartilage damage) would be red, hot to the touch and physically swollen.. When it is in this state it is seriously painful.. And when I say light activity, movement around the house..

    Through my experience and my experience alone I think it is very evil and I will never touch the stuff again, also eliminating and being diligent on other products I encounter which have artificial sweetening in any way, as I have been through a pretty torrid 2 and a half/3 years not wanting to experience that pain and disablement again.. But it clearly doesn't affect the same people.. In researching I have found people, one particular lady in the United States that would consume diet soft drink and it would cause a spasm of her optic nerve and she would become temporarily blind.. Of course this is a persons experience and like mine not backed up with definitive medical research, but just to give you a first person view on this, it's evil shit, read how exactly aspartame got approved by the FDA, and why after something like 10-13 previous times of being denied it eventually did.. It's up to you but just go natural or none at all.. The body is amazing in what it can do, but consuming too much chemical and processed products just can't be good for us if we be logical about it..

    I'm 31 now by the way, this happened out of the blue when I was 28.. I have high grade cartilage defects (bone on bone) of both patellas but everyone gets through with wear and tear on their joints, aspartame was purely the trigger to my disablement..

    Good luck and either way, it's your choice!

    • Gnostikos on 19/12/2015 - 17:42
      +1

      There is a real sense of uneasiness I have watching so many ordinary, seemingly-healthy people around me fall dangerously ill or die and no one, not especially anyone in the medical community, can actually tell people why.

      I've seen 2 people I knew personally die of cancer this year and I've actually lost count of how many stories were related to me of relatives or friends dying well before their time from incredibly sudden, aggressive and medically-baffling cancers that just took hold of people in a vice-like grip; as if some kind of spell straight out of a Greek mythological tragedy befell them.

      The stats are a matter of public record. Cancers and degenerative, neurological diseases are racking up death tolls in the Western world annually that make most genocides in history look like a day's work. (8.2 million cancer deaths annually, 44 million Alzheimer's sufferers worldwide, 1 in 68 kids in the US has autism; the combined burden on economies and healthcare in a dollar amount reaches into the hundreds of billions, not that I place great importance on the monetary value but it's useful as a measure of how serious these problems are. In Australia alone we'll be spending more on dementia than any other health condition by 2060.).

      These rates of affliction and death simply weren't even fathomable 40 or 50 years ago and yet according to all the experts, talking about prevention of these out-of-control epidemics is worthless; the only acceptable options are outrageously expensive, experimental, unproven drugs, invasive and inconclusive surgery or palliative care in the terminal phases. Talking about possible environmental causes in everyday products and consumables is taboo. Asking whether any corporations or individuals would have an interest in indirectly sickening the populace and then patenting and selling so-called "treatments" to the dead and dying is ludicrous.

      Yet the numbers just continue to jump upward and we're supposed to walk around and just feel normal about all of this. People dying, no one knows why and no one really cares.

      All the while we hear about carcinogens, neurotoxins, endocrine disruptors, artificial hormones and allergens in the food and water we consume daily.

    • Bunnyburger on 20/12/2015 - 17:37
      +1

      You were working in the mines. Would that have anything to do with it? There's a lot to be exposed to in the mines I reckon.

  • kaos on 19/12/2015 - 15:10
    +9

    Amar89 managed to make a decent argument but could not back it up with anything resembling sources, therefor it is all hearsay.

    dorway.com is an anti aspartame website and the link provided has already been reviewed and found to be less than reliable, thank you Oversimplified.

    Rickycruise has linked an ailment to the product but admits he has no proof. At this point he has our sympathy but it's just as likely that his neighbours changed their dog wash and his knee magically got better.

    You know what? If you don't like it, don't consume it.

    If you think it gave you herpes and drank your beer, don't buy it. But for pity's sake don't tell people it is dangerous without proof. And currently none of you have proof.

    I don't drink diet drinks because they are a 'sometimes' treat and I don't feel like cheating my body. Sorbitol and other sweeteners can make your tummy a bit weird. So don't consume them.

    But I think OP was looking for a non artificially sweetened gum. Sorry I don't have any to recommend.

    • Gnostikos on 19/12/2015 - 16:06
      +2

      I really have no time for naivety of this calibre.

      If you think I'm that imaginative that I just fudged together some historical trivia about Aspartame that is now a matter of public record, than you've got something other than sugar and sweeteners floating around in your brain.

      But for pity's sake don't tell people it is dangerous without proof. And currently none of you have proof.

      What would satisfy your burden of proof?

      I'm guessing you would like something along the lines of videotaped footage of a guy taking a sip of Pepsi Max, dropping to the floor and convulsing and then being pronounced dead?

      This is precisely the mindset that furnished notorious health catastrophes the likes of: Thalidomide, PCBs, DDT, Agent Orange, CFCs, Asbestos, Cigarettes, Lead as an additive in petrol/paint, Dioxin-based pesticides, Dalkon Shield, etc.

      All at one point in time considered as safe as water itself, and in days gone by, armed with the backing of a chorus line of pencil-necked "experts" who swore on enough Bibles to sink Noah's Ark.

      The mentality of waiting until people started dropping dead to identify a problem, is precisely what caused all of the above mentioned health catastrophes and more to the point, immediate casualties, if there were any, were quite often difficult to directly correlate to the toxin itself or chemical itself.

      Like Hiroshima and Nagasaki, people and ecosystems will be guaranteed to suffer from the after-effects of things like asbestos and PCBs for many generations and the accumulative impact will thus be impossible to quantify, as will the totality of the effort spent trying to decontaminate and eradicate those toxins from human populations (which will likely take the rest of this century).

      Your kinds of assertions are basically as far as safety is taken in the halls of power in our branches of government.

      If no one's dying, everything's just fine. If millions of people turn into drooling vegetables in 50 years time, or if our water sources become irreversibly contaminated, who really cares? The benefits of 4-year terms and revolving door parliaments.

      You know what? If you don't like it, don't consume it.

      What happens when we no longer have a choice? What happens when everything we wish to consume is tainted with questionable food additives, produced by questionable corporations with questionable motives? When companies like Monsanto make manifest their ultimate dream for global food production, where they have patented virtually all the seeds for food coops and even started growing artificial animal tissue, where will you turn to for actual, honest-to-God food products that are not scientific experiments masquerading as edible sustenance?

      Ever heard of Martin Niemoller's "First they came for the Communists…" poem?

      That is exactly why do you not wait until the very last moment, when you yourself are directly impacted by incremental, subversive and opportunistic oppression, to fight back.

      No one's saying we're going to wake up one day to find Aspartame on the ingredients list in bread, milk, eggs and bottled water.

      What I'm saying is, this is a microcosm in the fight for total food transparency and independence in the Western world. This is something as basic to our survival as making sure we're not eating stuff that is actually reducing our quality of life and shortening our lifespans, and for purely self-preservation reasons, it should be taken extremely seriously.

      Not with the haphazard, short-sighted attitude you have which basically amounts to: "Aww mate, I don't give shit if I'm not drinking it."

      Millions of fellow human beings out there are drinking Aspartame, and they deserve to know what effects it actually has.

      • furiousgeorge on 19/12/2015 - 16:33
        +3

        keep the good stuff comin mate.
        the sheep are baa baa ing and defending their controllers.

        • bargainslut on 20/12/2015 - 19:35

          They are so cute, with their fluffy little coats. I want to give them all a big hug and a kiss xxxx

        • furiousgeorge on 20/12/2015 - 20:54

          @bargainslut:
          haha yeh. or a kick up the bum and a' wake up twit.'

      • steve_asdfg on 20/12/2015 - 18:44
        +1

        What would satisfy your burden of proof?

        You could start by providing an example of a well-respected health or scientific organisation that says aspartame is dangerous. Or are they all part of the worldwide conspiracy?

        • bargainslut on 21/12/2015 - 00:28
          -2

          Which well respected health or scientific organisation to you refer too? I can't think of any right now Steve.

          I have read many documents and watched many videos from well respected scientists that got out of the 'money game' and prefer truth to money.

          Aspartame is a poison. I challenge you to prove otherwise.

        • steve_asdfg on 21/12/2015 - 11:37
          +3

          @bargainslut:
          I was thinking along the lines of the World Health Organisation, Royal Society, CSIRO, NIH, American Cancer Society etc.
          I think you'll find all these organisations disagree with you.

        • bargainslut on 21/12/2015 - 11:42

          @steve_asdfg: So they prefer money to truth? What's new Steve?

          Aspartame is a poison. I challenge you to prove otherwise.

      • frostman on 21/12/2015 - 08:46
        +4

        @Amar89

        What would satisfy your burden of proof?

        I'm guessing you would like something along the lines of videotaped footage of a guy taking a sip of Pepsi Max, dropping to the floor and convulsing and then being pronounced dead?

        LOLOLOLOL I laughed so loud in the office people looked at me

    • RickoWest on 19/12/2015 - 19:17
      +4

      I am not after any sympathy nor will I accept it, you have zero experience with the negative effects of this, and me opening up on mine cannot be debunked as quickly as using an example of the neighbours dog wash. That is highly insulting and total arrogance with what I have gone through and experienced over quite a length of time.. Im not interested in getting into a slinging match because afterall this is the internet and what's the point, but just please be mindful of what you write and use a bit of compassion with what you write.. I clearly stated these are my views whilst not shooting down anyone else's and saying it is definitely everyone's choice, for you to directly disregard someone's experience so easily to support your high horse view is just sad, so please, just be mindful.. We're all people here.. Not just some comment on a screen that differs from yours..

      • bargainslut on 19/12/2015 - 20:08
        +1

        Good on you Ricky. A friend of mine and some troubles with health. I suggested cutting out aspartame for 2 weeks and keep the rest of the diet unchanged. Hey presto they started to feel better and now live well without it!

        The more of us that put the truth out there the better, this is a positive thing mate:)

        • furiousgeorge on 19/12/2015 - 22:38
          +2

          sadly truth speak is becoming illegal.

    • bargainslut on 19/12/2015 - 20:11
      -1

      Kaos - I think that's a bit over the top. Maybe just consider the situation, that's all.

  • jm03 on 19/12/2015 - 18:45
    -1

    frostman:

    I used to buy my gum from www.xylitol.com.au.

    "Spry" is the name of the gum.

    Xylitol is a natural sweetener derived from fruits and vegetables, I believe.

    It's been a few years since I researched this…

    …the main thing that I remember is that Xylitol is a "safe" sweetener, similar to Stevia…

    You might like to look into this further.

    JM

    • jm03 on 20/12/2015 - 22:27
      +1

      How could anyone possibly downvote this post when it's a perfect reply to the OP's question.

      The OP's question was:

      "Anyone know any good gum that doesnt contain that garbage?"

      My reply answers the OP's question perfectly.

      Whoever downvoted my reply should be punished for downvoting on a fraudulent basis, when this reply clearly answers OP's question.

      If you had a problem with this reply, then it would be sane, rational, and civil to directly reply to it in a polite manner and explaining what specifically is your problem with the reply.

      Your downvoting is diametrically opposed to the purpose of the OP getting the answer he/she requested.

      • Speckled Jim on 22/12/2015 - 12:44

        How could anyone possibly downvote this post when it's a perfect reply to the OP's question.

        My reply answers the OP's question perfectly.

        http://www.xylitol.com.au/

        (server not found)

        I think I found the why, good luck hearing from who.

    • frostman on 21/12/2015 - 08:49

      why was this negged

  • gimli on 20/12/2015 - 13:04

    voodoo

  • [Deactivated] on 20/12/2015 - 18:10
    +1

    There is no hard evidence that suggests a conclusive link between sweeteners and health issues.

    There are laws for chemical reaction, breakdown and processing by the human body and these laws say there is simply nothing 'toxic' about Equal or Sweet n Low etc…

    Provide some hard evidence, some scientific proof. You can't because it doesn't exist.

  • kaos on 20/12/2015 - 18:53
    +2

    Right, you've all made good points, I'm sorry it wasn't possible to be kind and get my point across in very few words.

    Chris- I accept that what I wrote was insulting to your experience and I apologise for that. However what you've given us is an anecdote and it isn't proof.

    Amar89- please just give me one piece of irrefutable proof of the danger of aspartame. You gave us lots of anecdotes. Peer reviewed science would be a good start- thanks.

    Also please understand that you've diverted on to conspiracy theories when barking about cancer rates etc. If you provide links with proof, people will believe you more. Link to a study
    I campaign for a lot of the same things I think you would support- privacy, encryption, the environment, and people in general being nice to each other. The difference with me is that I also campaign against bullshit and people who hold completely unsupportable points of view.

    The simple reason we have so many health problems is that we eat too much and don't exercise enough, and we now have technology and hygiene that allows us to live longer, thus we experience more disease. And we don't die from things that would have killed us previously.

    My big point is this- DON'T consume artificial sweeteners. Sorbitol will give you the shits and other sweeteners will convince your brain to overeat. Control the amount of sugar you consume and don't eat anything with artificial sweeteners.

    And you seem to be suggesting that I'm uncaring because I advised you to avoid it. You've implied that this means I don't care about people. 'People deserve to know what effects it actually has'

    Well yes. It's safe. Many studies have confirmed this. This makes you the uncaring one because you are needlessly fear mongering. You are causing people stress because you are parroting lies that cannot be back up with scientific fact.

    Kind of odd that you bring up a whole bunch of failures as evidence that science is wrong. It only proves that science is flexible enough to make and correct mistakes.

    You have the right to your opinion. You don't get to make shit up. A fact is a fact whether you believe it or not. It is a fact that aspartame is pretty safe. I still avoid it.

    Now, we've had 'toxin', 'sheep' and other random conspiracy linked words here, you're obviously not dumb but I don't think you have any basis for the attitude that 'they' are out to get you.

    I understand that you feel you must fight for your beliefs, but please study the science, and not the nutty websites.

    GMO's= safe
    Aspartame= safe
    Organic does not equal safe, or better, or less pesticide, or less toxic

    Thanks for watching

    • bargainslut on 20/12/2015 - 19:31

      Thanks for clearing everything up Kaos. I'm now digging up the last of my spray free fruits and vegetables in my garden and switching to GMO's.

      I'm now going to consume aspartame and ditch all my raw honey and jaggery.

      I feel so much better, thank you!

      ps - Why are you saying sorry to Chris?

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join