Why You’d Be Crazy to Consume Aspartame
by Vin Miller
Aspartame, more commonly known as NutraSweet or Equal, is an artificial sweetener that’s commonly found in many diet sodas and other low calorie products. Aspartame is a dangerous substance that should have never been approved, and because of the modern obsession with restricting calories, millions of people are risking their health by consuming the many products that contain it.
Aspartame has been reported to have upwards of 100 side effects, many of which are neurological or related to impaired nervous system function. Aspartame usage has even been associated with the diagnosis of serious conditions such as multiple sclerosis, fibromyalgia, lupus, brain tumors, and even death. Under the NutraSweet label, aspartame is sold in more than 100 countries, is found in more than 6,000 products, and is consumed by more than 250 million people which includes more than two thirds of the American population. The fact that aspartame has significantly compromised the lives of many people is very real and its use is a serious risk that lacks any reasonable justification whatsoever, especially when natural alternatives exist that are much safer.
The Dark History of Aspartame’s Approval
In 1965, a scientist for G. D. Searle & Company was developing a drug for the treatment of ulcers and accidentally spilled the substance he was working with on his hand. After instinctively licking it off and noticing a sweet taste, aspartame was born.
In 1970, G. D. Searle conducted one of their first studies on aspartame by feeding it to monkeys for 52 weeks. Of the 7 monkeys fed aspartame, 1 died and 5 suffered grand mal seizures. In the same year, neuroscientist Dr. John Olney discovered through research of his own that one of the main ingredients of aspartame caused brain tumors in mice. Despite the results of their monkey study, and despite replicating the results of Dr. Olney’s work, G. D. Searle forged ahead and submitted an application to the FDA in 1973 for the approval aspartame as a food additive.
After requesting additional information from G. D. Searle, the FDA granted preliminary approval of aspartame in 1974 but would not allow it to be marketed. Based on some serious questions that had arisen from G. D. Searle’s suspect research, the FDA formed a task force to closely examine the studies that aspartame’s preliminary approval was based on. The result of this was the “Bressler report” which identified a number of significant flaws in G. D. Searle’s research including delays of sometimes more than a year before research animals were autopsied, animals with tumors being reported as normal, and failing to report other issues such as enlarged lymph nodes and testicular atrophy.
In 1977, the FDA requested a criminal investigation of G. D. Searle’s alleged deletion, manipulation, and falsification of records regarding the testing of aspartame and other products. Before the investigation could be completed, Samuel Skinner, the U.S. attorney assigned to this investigation, resigned and accepted a job with G. D. Searle’s law firm Sidley & Austin. William Conlin, who was Skinner’s former assistant, took over the investigation and let its statute of limitations expire. Aspartame was saved by the bell, and afterward, Conlin accepted a job with G. D. Searle’s law firm as well.
Politics at Its Finest
As G. D. Searle was falling apart due to the controversies surrounding aspartame, Donald Rumsfeld, the former U. S. Secretary of State, was hired in 1977 to run the company and push for aspartame’s approval. Despite a request from the Food Safety Council to collaborate with G. D. Searle and conduct additional research on the safety of aspartame, Rumsfeld eventually declined and chose to pursue its approval without conclusive safety data. Meanwhile, the FDA had established a Public Board of Inquiry to evaluate the safety of aspartame and voted unanimously to not approve it until research was done to further evaluate its association with brain tumors.
The day after Ronald Regan was sworn into office as President, with Donald Rumsfeld as a member of his transition team, he suspended the authority of the FDA commissioner and replaced him a month later with Dr. Arthur Hull Hayes. During this time, G. D. Searle reapplied for the approval of aspartame and submitted new supporting research. Three of the five FDA scientists responsible for evaluating the evidence relating to brain tumors advised against aspartame’s approval. Dr. Hayes, the newly appointed FDA commissioner, appointed a new member to this panel to establish a tied vote and proceeded to overrule the FDA’s Public Board of Inquiry and approve aspartame for use in dry foods. Two years later, aspartame was also approved for use in carbonated beverages and Dr. Hayes left the FDA to work for G. D. Searl’s public relations firm at the rate of $1,000 per day.
According to the Delaney clause of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, no additive should be regarded as safe if it’s been shown to induce cancer. Based on this, aspartame should have never been approved. However, the deceptive manipulations behind the approval of aspartame spread overseas where G. D. Searle, still under the direction of Rumsfeld, was able to facilitate the highly controversial approval of aspartame in England. From this point, the approval and use of aspartame spread throughout the world.
The Dangers of Consuming Aspartame
When aspartame was fully approved in 1983, the American population as a whole began consuming it in massive amounts. By 1984, roughly 7 million pounds of it were being consumed. In the next year, this figure doubled and continued to grow steadily into the 1990s. Within 6 months of the release of aspartame, the rate of brain tumors increased by 10%, diabetes increased by 30%, and brain lymphoma increased by 60%. By 1988, over 80% of voluntary complaints filed to FDA were related to aspartame. By 1992, the FDA had received more than 10,000 complaints of aspartame reactions, and through their own admittance, less than 1% of people who experience a reaction to a product actually report it.
Aspartame consists of methyl ether and the amino acids phenylalanine and aspartic acid. When ingested, the methyl ether in aspartame becomes highly toxic methyl alcohol which is also known as methanol or wood alcohol and can be lethal in doses as small as four ounces. The methanol from aspartame is broken down into formaldehyde which is dangerous toxin that the body is unable to eliminate. Although the amount of methanol and formaldehyde produced from aspartame is small, the effects can easily accumulate over time and cause serious problems including fatal kidney damage, blindness, organ failure, and even death. Formaldehyde is also believed to cause cancer and is known to alter DNA.
A Deceptive Interpretation of Nature
Proponents of aspartame point out that common foods such as fruits contain much more methanol. However, the methanol in fruit is bound to a type of fiber called pectin which prevents the molecule from being digested by humans and allows it to easily pass through the body without being absorbed. Furthermore, even if the methanol in fruit were to be separated from the pectin, it would likely be counteracted by the ethanol that fruit also contains. This is not the case with aspartame.
Although phenylalanine and aspartic acid are amino acids that naturally exist in food, in such cases, they’re balanced with other amino acids. In contrast, when phenylalanine and aspartic acid are consumed in their free forms as part of aspartame, they exist in unnaturally high concentrations. According to neurosurgeon Dr. Russel Blaylock, in such concentrations, aspartic acid acts as an excitotoxin that can kill brain cells by overstimulating them, and phenylalanine is a neurotoxin that can cause seizures and nervous system dysfunction. This is why many of the symptoms associated with aspartame consumption are related to dysfunction of the brain and nervous system.
The damaging effects that aspartic acid can have on the brain are believed to contribute to neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinsons and have been shown to promote the production of free radicals which are implicated in a number diseases including heart disease, cancer, and arthritis.
As a precursor to norepinepherine, phenylalanine can also alter the balance of important brain neurotransmitters, especially serotonin, and increase the likeliness of mood issues, panic, and seizures as a result. Because of this, aspartame is also addictive. In addition, phenylalanine can decompose into the known carcinogen diketopierazine (DKP) when exposed to warm temperatures. This is a significant concern for the aspartame products that are transported in hot weather or stored in hot warehouses.
The Other Side of the Aspartame Argument
In my opinion, you’d have to be out of your mind to consume aspartame after being made aware of its risks. However, everyone is entitled to their own opinions and some people consider aspartame to be safe. Early in aspartame’s tainted history, representatives of G. D. Searle and even some from the FDA proclaimed aspartame to be safe based on it being the most tested food additive ever, but this is misleading considering the poor quality of the supporting research.
We clearly know that G. D. Searle had a vested interest in aspartame and that their research is highly questionable. We also know that the FDA can be very biased. Ralph Walton MD conducted a peer review of 166 aspartame studies conducted between 1970 and 1998 that were related to human safety. 74 of these studies had funding sources that were tied to aspartame, and the remaining 92 were funded by independent sources. All of the industry funded research concluded that aspartame is safe, and in nearly complete contrast, 92% of the independently funded studies found at least one problem suggesting otherwise.
In 1985, G. D. Searle was acquired by Monsanto which is another chemical manufacturer that also has a tainted history of corruption. Monsanto has been under tremendous scrutiny because of their involvement with the now outlawed chemicals DDT and PCBs, and most recently, genetically modified foods. After acquiring G. D. Searle, Monsanto established the NutraSweet company to handle its aspartame operations and claimed that they’d support new research on aspartame by providing free samples to legitimate researchers. However, when Dr. Walton requested samples for a double blind study on the safety of aspartame, his request was refused and he was told that his research was unnecessary. The NutraSweet company even refused to sell him aspartame.
When Dr. Walton finally obtained samples from another source and conducted his study, two of his subjects experienced internal eye bleeding, one of which also suffered a detached retina and ultimately lost vision in the same eye. This is in addition to a number of other unpleasant but less severe adverse reactions experienced by the remaining participants.
Is Government Betraying Us?
Despite the FDA’s mixed actions throughout the approval of aspartame, the government hasn’t been completely innocent either. Former FDA Investigator Arthur Evangelista confirms this by indicating that the FDA approved aspartame despite investigators knowing that the supporting evidence for its safety was inadequate. The FDA has also made it difficult to obtain the Bressler report referenced earlier despite the existence of the Freedom of Information Act, and according to people who have spoken directly with Jerome Bressler, the FDA has even deleted 20% of its content including a signature from a high level official.
In 1986, based on only about 600 of the more than 10,000 aspartame reactions reported to the FDA, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) created a 146 page report assessing its potential to cause cardiac arrest, seizures, liver problems, mood alteration, and even death. Not surprisingly, this report isn’t available on the CDC’s website, and the summary of the report that is available seems to be an attempt to soften the perceived severity of the risks associated with aspartame. If the majority of aspartame reactions are as mild as the CDC claims in their summary, then what reason do they have to hide this report from us?
Despite the controversy surrounding aspartame, its use has also been supported by prestigious and influential organizations including the American Dietetic Association, the American Diabetes Association, and the American Medical Association. Apparently, monetary influence may be even more of a risk to our health than aspartame. Adding insult to injury, the people who get sick from substances like aspartame are often prescribed medications that are manufactured by the same drug companies that made them sick in the first place. This vicious cycle is great for the drug industry and our government is helping to facilitate it.
Still Not Convinced?
As I previously mentioned, everyone is entitled to their own opinions. Mine is that you’d have to be crazy to consume aspartame. Regardless of how unlikely the major reactions to aspartame may be, there’s really no need for artificial sweeteners, and in turn, no reason to risk your health by using them. Besides, even if you’re not experiencing any major reactions from aspartame, this doesn’t mean its effects aren’t accumulating within your body and won’t cause serious problems later in life. Finally, with the availability of natural sweeteners like stevia, there’s really no reason to use an artificial sweetener like aspartame, Splenda, or any other. In my opinion, anyone who perceives the need to use sweeteners on a regular basis, whether natural or not, is neglecting the most important principle of healthy eating.
For more information, I highly recommend that you watch the Sweet Misery documentary. If the interviews with the experts who’ve extensively researched aspartame and the individuals who’ve suffered greatly from consuming it don’t make you furious about how badly we’ve been misled, they should at least make you reconsider consuming aspartame yourself. You can also read the book Sweet Deception by Dr. Joseph Mercola which provides great information on Splenda and other sweeteners as well.
Post this on Twitter
Post this on Facebook
Support this on StumbleUpon
Email this to friends
Leave a comment
As the interested reader peruses this critique, they should note that the dates citing problems with aspartame are all quite old, except of course the unmentioned 1996 date when “the FDA removed all restrictions on aspartame and approved its use in all products, including baked goods and heated.” Aspartame is safe used as directed and all these comments have been completely rejected for decades. Any issues with aspartame are purely personal issues. That is because aspartame’s methanol is metabolized to vital formate by the folate vitamin system. The claimed adversee effects are actually all symptoms not of aspartame use, but of personal issues including folate deficiency, folate enzyme problems and/or accrual of the very powerful excitotoxin homocysteine that most often occurs as a consequence of folate issues. And these folate/homocysteine issues are actually common and play a major role in human disease today.
John E. Garst, Ph.D. (Medicinal Chemistry, Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Nutrition)
(FYI, the author has absolutely no financial or biasing connection with the aspartame, the soft drink or their related industries. The author has a Ph.D. in Medicinal Chemistry (Pharmacy) from the University of Iowa, postdoctoral experience at Yale University (Molecular Biophysics & Biochemistry) and at Vanderbilt University and taught nutritional toxicology at the University of Illinois (Champaign-Urbana) besides having conducted federally funded research at Vanderbilt, UIUC, and at several other universities before recently entering into retirement.)
John,
You’ve made quite an effort to emphasize your credentials and point out that you have no financial ties to aspartame. I also see that you’ve put a lot of effort into posting your claims on a number of other websites. If you aren’t biased, I can only wonder why you’re so motivated to defend aspartame.
What especially concerns me is that despite your credentials, there seems to be some significant flaws in your logic. You conclude that aspartame is safe based on the claim that it only causes problems in people who have folate deficiency, enzyme problems, or an accumulation of homecysteine. On other websites, you’ve stated that these problems are quite common.
Even if your claim is true, by your own logic, aspartame still poses a risk to a large portion of the population. Although it might be wise for people to have their folate and homocysteine levels tested as a general health precaution, do you seriously expect them to get tested (or even know that they should be tested) just to determine if they can “safely” consume aspartame? That is beyond ridiculous, especially with the existence of natural alternatives like stevia which has been safely used for thousands of years. If you were truly interested in people’s safety, I think this would be blatantly obvious to you. However, it seems to me that you’re more interested in playing the blame game and protecting aspartame’s reputation than helping people avoid unnecessary risks.
For anyone who is curious to learn more about Mr. Garst, I suggest you read about his recent political activities and decide for yourself if you think he’s really unbiased.
It’s a clean knockout, Vin Miller 10, John E. Garst 0. Vin, you handled that brilliantly and tactfully.
Hi Vin !
I’ve gotten way behind in my reading, you’ve written some great articles this week.
I knew Rumsfeld played a large roll in getting aspartame approved, but did not know all the details. Very interesting.
I do not eat anything “fake” or artificial. No fake sugar, no fake flavors, colors, meats, cheeses, milks or spreads(margarine, etc.) If it’s not real, it’s not worth eating. I believe that nature knows better than the money hungry industrial food producers.
Hi meatlessmama, thanks for your comment!
Rumsfeld is also behind Tamiflu and who knows what else. It’s telling to say the least.
The food industry may outsmart many of us, but will never outsmart nature. I couldn’t agree more.
Vin, thank you for the response to John, and for this informative article on the topic. I don’t like the taste of diet soda, and don’t go for artificial sweeteners, for reasons other than simply avoiding aspartame, but it’s a good reminder to see that research is in order before just trusting these products.
I remember hearing George Noory on Coast to Coast AM talk about how disturbed he was by the issue. He said he was writing a book on it, and a quick Google search pulled up this panel discussion that also exposes a dark history.
Thank you for keeping us informed, and grounding the dark stuff with the positive suggestions of taking greater responsibility for our health.
Hi Melissa, thanks for your comment!
Thank you for sharing that panel discussion. Many of the people involved are also in the Sweet Misery documentary and have done a great deal to spread awareness of the risks associated with aspartame.
If there wasn’t something beneficial to learn from all of this gloomy information, then it wouldn’t be worth writing about!
Excellent article Vin, I am afraid we will continue to see reruns of the aspartame scenario. The demand for zero calorie sweeteners, and the profits associated with them, continues to give birth to a vast array of sweet poisons. Even if one of them finally gets pulled from the shelves because of health risks, there are ten more ready to take their place as the new miracle calorie solution. It’s amazing the lengths some people will go to to avoid making healthy lifestyle changes. Until we are willing to accept responsibility for for our own health, there will always be another aspartame. Thank you for shining the light of truth on this sweet poison.
Thanks, Jonathan!
You’re absolutely right, and this is exactly why many food manufacturers have switched to Splenda. Pepsi and Coke have even gone as far as making patentable forms of stevia. The FDA doesn’t allow stevia to exist in food or beverages, but will now allow Coke and Pepsi to use their unnatural and unnecessarily processed derivatives of stevia. Most food and chemical manufacturers will go out of their way to make people believe that their products are safe and healthy regardless of whether or not it’s really true. What Coke and Pepsi did with stevia makes it obvious what the true motive is.
Well in the UK it has got worse all the drinks like Robinson’s now all have that added and they promote drinks with it in for children, most of the UK is well oblivious to it they crave sugar free thinking its better and they are really quite stupid in ways believing all the marketing hype when it does more harm to you but alas some are sheep in ways (sorry sheep) as the just so programmed to believe it all and they wonder why they get sicker and sicker… its in chewing gum even so many things with its friend AsfucalmeK (sp?) Well I guess its so cheap for the companies to use and the powers that be love it cos it keep people inline with their ideals so they can keep this low state of life far from nature. But alas it is the soul that has to figure it out those who know are well on their journey those who just follow the blind marketing well not much to be said really
Om Shanti
Hi Om, thanks for your comment!
I’m sorry to hear that artificial sweeteners have become such a concern overseas as well. It’s sad to see the less respectable aspects of American culture spread throughout the rest of the world.
This is just another example to show that we need to take personal responsibility for our well being. The governments and commercial interests certainly are not going to! Unfortunately, our family used aspartame for a couple of years when it first became popular. I don’t know what, if any, bad effects have come from using it, but almost everything we eat now is REAL food. I use xylitol occasionally to make a dessert. I’d be interested to hear your views on that product.
This is a great, informative article that really shines the light on a subject I didn’t know much about. THANKS!
Hi Patty, thanks for your comment!
Yes, I think aspartame is a great example of why we need to take responsibility for our health. It’s great to see that your family has done exactly that by avoiding aspartame and eating good food.
Xylitol is a sugar alcohol that seems to be safe. However, the claims of it being calorie free aren’t exactly true and it can affect blood sugar and be converted into fat. I think it’s a reasonable choice as long as you don’t use it often and you’re not a diabetic.
A frightfully comprehensive article, Vin. Thanks for spreading the word, even if it does make for horrifying reading. And why oh why am I not surprised that Rumsfeld was involved?
Hi Phil, thanks for your comment!
I didn’t mean for the article to be horrifying and hope that most people don’t perceive it that way. I agree that the deception behind the approval and promotion of products like aspartame is indeed horrifying, but in regards to your own health, there’s not much to worry about as long as you error on the side of eating natural foods and using natural products. Nature doesn’t lie and isn’t concerned with money.
Granted, not everything that comes from nature is healthy, but the odds are far more favorable.
I always knew that aritficial sweeteners are dangerous. It is good that you have fully elaborated it here so that I can explain to my buddies the danger of this substitute sweeterners.
Hi Walter, I’m glad you found the information useful. Hopefully your friends will have an open mind and listen to what you have to say. You’re a good friend by looking out for their health.
Interesting comment from the doc up top. But the way I see it is that even if you could prove that aspartame was harmless (which is dubious) why would you ever want to consume it? It’s artificial.
Exactly, Thomas! If you follow the link I included in my response, it seems that he has some kind of political motivation to be spreading his claim all over the internet.
Vin Miller:
First, let me say something about the 1980-1990 regulatory issues you raised that I skirted earlier. You are trying to make some conspiracy theory out of this issue, when that is simply not the case. In other circumstances perhaps it might be a cause for concern, but what you fail to understand is the following scientific fact known by virtually any decent scientist then and now. Methyl esters and their liberation of methanol upon digestion simply constitute no health risk when consumed in small amounts over prolonged periods of times. Normal metabolic processes not only detoxify methyl esters, but actually utilize the reduced formate’s methyl group for vital functions just as the methanol obtained naturally in many foods. And small amounts over prolonged periods of times are exactly the way aspartame is consumed. Moreover, neither of the two natural amino acids in aspartame poses any risk either; you eat them in even larger concentrations with most every meal. The same goes for this readily hydrolyzed combination of these two amino acids. So there never was any viable health risk in the first place and any reasonable scientist knew that there was no risk from aspartame used as it was labeled, even before it was approved. Any hesitation by the regulators was merely a delaying tactic without any scientific validity in the first place. And that fact has been completely substantiated over the twenty years this product has been on the market.
Let me try to put this in other words that perhaps better explain the point. Assuming you are a normal person (that is not a diabetic), you would not be harmed in any way if you ate a sugar cube. Why then should the sugar cube not be approved post haste? There is no good reason to justify ten years of sugar cube safety studies in normal people! And again, the record for aspartame completely validates the argument cited for this specific substance labeled as GRAS (generally recognized as safe).
Second, why do I post these arguments? Simple, I don’t like lies and falsehoods especially when it comes to science, so I try to explain the real facts. You would be well-advised to read and study what I have said so that you might have a better understanding not only about why aspartame is not an issue, but why folic acid issues likely underlie much ill health and cancer today. Also, the regulatory agencies are simply not going to change their opinions given the substantial evidence supporting aspartame safety and no evidence to the contrary. In fact recently the EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) just reconfirmed the safety of aspartame. You probably don’t know this antiaspartame stuff is a lie, because you are only repeating errant information gleaned from some other website(s). They seem to have made a conspiracy case, but the facts are clear to any real pharmacologist or toxicologist that aspartame is perfectly safe and this whole issue is merely part of an internet aspartame conspiracy theory that has no merit now or in the past. The only people supporting this nonsense about aspartame are a few mistaken and/or misguided physicians, none of whom have experience in drug and chemical safety in the first place, but many of whom are surgeons having even less understanding of pharmacology (the science of drugs) or toxicology (the science of poisons) than the norm.
Third, let me raise a fundamental problem about the strongly disproven antiaspartame science (Soffritti et al; European Ramazzini Foundation, ERF) rejected by all the regulatory agencies. FYI, since then too all the ERF rats in all their studies, not just on aspartame but on many other compounds, were likely infected with Mycoplasma pulmoni (supporting research). Who provided the money for ERF to do their work? No one knows from where it comes and those that do aren’t talking; it certainly was not public money. Might it be donations from antiaspartame critics supporting and attempting to perpetuate this conspiracy theory (Martini and Soffritti are (were) close; http://www.wnho.net/soffritti_martini_picture.htm)? Others sell antiaspartame books, ineffectual treatments, etc, and through these offerings self-proclaimed aspartame critics have a clear financial interest in keeping the aspartame controversy alive for their own financial gain, not to speak of a wrong-headed desire to litigate aspartame makers. They cannot win in either the political or scientific arenas, so their motives might be the real story here.
Now to the “aspartame still poses a risk to a large portion of the population” issue you raised. You misunderstand. Aspartame poses no risk to the population, because no one can blame any chemical or drug for any problem, be it sickness, cancer or any ailment, when that problem can be rectified by a vitamin. That is why they are vitamins—substances needed for life. Science and medicine have been proclaiming to people for nearly fifty years the importance of adequate (vitamin) nutrition, so it should be clear now that adequate vitamin consumption is a personal responsibility. Folate deficiency and the related issues can be solved completely by multiple vitamin consumption and FYI only these supplements–you simply cannot get enough folate from foods. Also many other drugs and foods deplete or adversely affect folate—most prominently drinking alcohol, which inhibits the folate reactions. Have you heard of fetal alcohol syndrome? You think methanol is bad, but methanol is the substrate, ethanol is the blocker of the folate reactions. Ethanol potentiates (exacerbates) many diseases linked to folate deficiency and that includes breast cancer mentioned at the end of the next paragraph.
Lastly, you need to realize that the aspartame ingested doses of methanol, formaldehyde, or formate are not only also irrelevant, but that low and continually ingested amounts of methanol (formaldehyde) are actually vital to supply the folate enzyme system with formate precursor. It along with vitamin B12 converts the carbon of formate into methyl groups to detoxify the serious excitotoxin homocysteine into methionine and uracil into thymine, before that uracil can enter DNA and cause it to become fragile and breakable. Aspartame provides not only a source of this methanol and formate, but actually through these mechanisms that it like dietary methanol serves to protect against disease. As I mentioned earlier, the problem is not aspartame, but the problem is that a good percentage of the population is deficient in folate (and/or vitamin B12), have folate enzyme differences that worsen that deficiency (called methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase polymorphism, see Wikipedia) or have high homocysteine through these or related issues. The old adage “you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make them drink” is applicable to vitamin consumption too. But those factors, not aspartame, are responsible for all adverse reactions to aspartame and those factors are also responsible for the 90+ diseases falsely attributed by ignorant critics to aspartame. For example one breast cancer study “suggest[s] that moderate folate deficiency has a stronger effect on chromosomal instability than BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations found in breast cancer families”, see abstract here.
John E. Garst, Ph.D. (Medicinal Chemistry, Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Nutrition)
John,
You are still missing the most essential point. Regardless of your reasoning, aspartame has been the subject of more than 10,000 complaints to the FDA. Call it a conspiracy theory if you wish, but anyone with some common sense will see that aspartame is not worth taking a chance when there are natural alternatives with much safer records.
I don’t care what your credentials are, you can’t outsmart nature with an unnatural substance like aspartame or your explanations of how it’s supposedly harmless. Since you seem to think that everyone is folate deficient and needs supplementation, you clearly have little faith in the value of natural foods. Granted, our soil isn’t what it used to be, but if we listened to all the people who say that everyone is deficient in this and everyone is deficient in that, we’d all be trying to live off of dozens of supplements instead of real food. I have a lot more reason to believe the “decent scientists” who respect nature than I have to believe you.
You say that I misunderstand and that “aspartame poses no risk to the population, because no one can blame any chemical or drug for any problem, be it sickness, cancer or any ailment, when that problem can be rectified by a vitamin.” You sound like the dietitian who commented on one of my articles suggesting that the high fructose corn syrup and sugar in soda can’t be blamed for poor health. I wouldn’t be surprised if you agree or if you think that the bad publicity on HFCS and sugar is a conspiracy as well.
Based on your reasoning, for aspartame to truly be safe, everyone would need to have blood tests to confirm that their vitamin levels are good enough to withstand the insult of aspartame. As I mentioned in my previous response, this is simply ridiculous. If many people are folate deficient, and aspartame is more likely to cause problems when this deficiency exists, then avoiding aspartame is a smart precaution and a matter of common sense. For lack of a better word – DUH!
In my opinion, the fact that you admit to the combination of folate deficiency and aspartame consumption being a problem while also stating that “aspartame poses no risk to the population” is a complete contradiction. You’re simply trying to be clever with your wording to make it seem otherwise. I don’t like lies and falsehoods either and this certainly has the makings of one.
Your sugar cube analogy shows another weakness in your argument. Apparently the subject of FDA approval is more of a concern to you than public health. To be honest, I really don’t care about aspartame or sugar being approved because there will always be other unhealthy additives to replace them. What I do care about is that people realize the harmful potential of these substances (even if the harm can only occur with a folate deficiency or homocysteine excess). If health was your primary concern too, I can’t see why you’d be so supportive of aspartame regardless of how many “lies” you perceive to be circulating about it. I wouldn’t even support stevia with the fervor that you support aspartame with.
I really didn’t want to publish your response because it seems pretty obvious to me that you have some kind of hidden agenda and I really don’t like you using my website as a platform to promote it. However, I’d like to let others see your explanation and evaluate it for themselves. I think you’ve provided more than enough of your explanation, so please spare us from any more of your attempts to overpower common sense with scientific jargon.
hey! good debate and interesting facts…….so, vin, would you recommend ANYTHING to sweeten my coffee??????
Hi Rebecca,
As long as you don’t have any problems keeping your blood sugar regulatedin moderation is fine. Aside from that, I think stevia is a good alternative. However, I think it’s better to address cravings for excessively sweet foods by following a diet based more on natural whole foods than to frequently rely on sweeteners, and this applies regardless of whether or not the sweeteners are natural.
A comprehensive review in 2007 disagrees with the thrust of this article.
http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10408440701516184
Critical review of all carcinogenicity studies conducted on aspartame found no credible evidence that aspartame is carcinogenic. The data from the extensive investigations into the possibility of neurotoxic effects of aspartame, in general, do not support the hypothesis that aspartame in the human diet will affect nervous system function, learning or behavior. Epidemiological studies on aspartame include several case-control studies and one well-conducted prospective epidemiological study with a large cohort, in which the consumption of aspartame was measured. The studies provide no evidence to support an association between aspartame and cancer in any tissue. The weight of existing evidence is that aspartame is safe at current levels of consumption as a nonnutritive sweetener.
Hi Tim,
Thank you for sharing that study, I’ll assume that you presented it with honest intentions. Since the full text of this study isn’t available for free, I also assume that you haven’t read anything more than the abstract.
Here’s a thorough explanation of why this particular study is rife with conflict of interest and significantly flawed. In short, the authors of this study, including the lead author, have ties to companies like Monsanto and Coca-Cola, and much like Ancel Keys did with his heart disease research, they selectively excluded information from the research they reviewed that didn’t agree with their claims. In addition, there are numerous examples of this study relying on the results of other industry funded research that is also flawed and biased. One such study only lasted a single day!
If you want to trust your health in the hands of companies like Monsanto, NutraSweet, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and their advocates, that’s your choice, but I don’t think it would be a wise one.
Yes, Tim, there was a “study” in 2007 that found aspartame safe. Well…guess what, The “study” was paid for by the largest manufacturer of aspartame. And, obviously, the researchers didn’t look at reports that were truthful.
For example, The Bressler (1977) report exposed mammary, uterine, and ovarian tumors. James Bressler, leader of the FDA Task Force, said, “The question you have got to ask yourself is: Because of the importance of this study, why wasn’t greater care taken? The study is highly questionable because of our findings. Why didn’t Searle, with their scientists, closely evaluate this, knowing full well that the whole society, from the youngest to the elderly, from the sick to the unsick . . . will have access to this product.”
All the “study” has done is to ensure the suffering of more and more unsuspecting, innocent people.
For anyone foolish enough to consume it, I say, “Have a grand time! And smoke a few cigarettes as you pour aspartame into your body.”
John, are you at it again? First of all, get over the “small amounts” of methanol. As Dr. Alemany stated “With respect to the problem of ascertaining how much methanol is in a given amount of aspartame, it is easy, one mol of aspartame yields one mol of methanol and, potentially, one mol of formaldehyde. The expression of methanol content in aspartame as a percentage of its weight is not applicable, since methanol is not a component of aspartame: you need to add a molecule of water to release it. Complete hydrolysis of aspartame’s two ester bonds needs 2 moles of water per mol of aspartame, and the weight of the resulting products is higher (by the incorporation of water) than that of the original product.” Surely with all your degrees you understand molecular chemistry. Be sure to read Dr. Woodrow Monte’s new report: Methanol: A Chemical Trojan Horse.
Also in nature, oranges, tomatoes, etc. there is also ethanol the classic antidote to methanol toxicity. The ethanol prevents the methanol from breaking down to formaldehyde and formic acid, ant sting poison. Also in nature, methanol binds to pectin. There is no ethanol in aspartame.
Next, you say, “neither of the two natural amino acids in aspartame poses any risk either; you eat them in even larger concentrations with most every meal.” There are certain amino acids you cannot isolate and two of them are in aspartame, aspartic acid 40% which is an excitotoxin, and phenylalanine 50% which is a neurotoxin. I would suggest you read Dr. Russell Blaylock’s book, Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills, Then you will understand what an excitotoxin, a product that stimulates the neurons of the brain to death causing brain damage of varying degrees. Dr. John Olney, a world renowned neuroscientist, who tried to prevent the approval of aspartame because of the aspartic acid founded the field of neuroscience called excitotoxicity. Dr. Blaylock wrote the book on it. A small per cent of phenylalanine is in such things as meat and milk, but not 50%. The phenylalanine is neurotoxic as an isolate, floods the brain, lowers the seizure threshold and depletes serotonin. If you still don’t get it I would suggest you read this report by James Bowen, MD, and Dr. Arthur Evangelista, a former FDA Investigator: Brain Cell Damage from Amino Acid Isolates.
Here is Dr.Richard Wurtman’s statement about phenylalanine in Congress when an industry flack tried using the propaganda of the manufacturer. Notice he says: “When you have aspartame, you are not obtaining any of the other amino acids…which are present in all proteins (aspartame is not a protein) that block phenylalanine’s ability to pass from the blood to the brain. So even a small increase in blood phenylalanine will cause a very large increase in brain phenylalanine. To my knowledge, NO OTHER FOOD THAT MANKIND HAS EVER EATEN CAUSES THE CHANGES IN BRAIN CHEMISTRY THAT ARE PROVIDED BY ASPARTAME.” Do you now understand? Here’s a chapter in his book that will guide you in understanding.
It was Dr. Olney who did the studies on aspartic acid and found it caused lesions in the brains of mice. Here’s an old CV on Dr. Olney so you can read his background since you call aspartame experts misguided physicians. What you are really saying is if physicians or researchers disagree with industry propaganda that you put forth they should be considered misguided.
You say you don’t like lies and falsehoods, so why do you present them? Contrary to what you say, physicians the world over have found out about aspartame. Why do you think Ajinomoto is changing the name aspartame to AminoSweet. It’s got a bad name and millions of hits on the Internet expose the facts.
If you still don’t get it read the propaganda the manufacturers release rebutted with medical references.
As to anti-aspartame activists getting out the word so they can sell books or such, you must be running out of excuses. Mission Possible International is funded by my husband’s checkbook. We don’t sell anything, and I’ve been working free for 19 years as have other MP operations in 40 nations. There are some people who have a conscience and knowing aspartame is an addictive, excitoneurotoxic , carcinogenic, genetically engineered drug that damages the mitochondria, the powerhouse of the cell, warn others so they can get well and live. Proverbs 24:11 & 12: “Deliver those who are being taken away to death; and those staggering to the slaughter, O may you hold them back. In case you should say: “Look! We did not know of this,” will not he himself that is making an estimate of hearts discern it, and he himself that is observing your soul know and certainly pay back to earthling man according to his activity?”
This statement is a dozy. “But those factors, not aspartame, are responsible for all adverse reactions to aspartame and those factors are also responsible for the 90+ diseases falsely attributed by ignorant critics to aspartame.” Let’s see now, a deficiency in folic acid is responsible for everything. The ignorant critics you say are responsible for listing the 92 symptoms would be the FDA. The medical text, Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic, by H. J. Roberts, M.D., is over 1000 pages of symptoms and diseases, and you really think someone is going to believe some folic acid would have prevented these epidemics. Aspartame, for example, breaks down to diketopiperazine, a brain tumor agent, so you’re saying, if the victim had taken his folic acid the glioblastoma that ends up killing him would not have formed? You actually are saying if victims had taken folic acid they would not suffer from all the diseases listed in the text from MS and lupus to cancer, seizures and male sexual
dysfunction? The experts have already proven to you, that you are simply wrong.
Now you try to disprove the fact that the Ramazzini Studies proved aspartame is a multipotential carcinogen. First of all, it was known that aspartame causes cancer from the beginning.
On August 1, l985 the FDA’s own toxicologist, Dr. Adrian Gross, told Congress at least one of Searle’s studies “has established beyond ANY REASONABLE DOUBT that aspartame is capable of inducing brain tumors in experimental animals and that this predisposition of it is of extremely high significance. … In view of these indications that the cancer causing potential of aspartame is a matter that had been established WAY BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT, one can ask: What is the reason for the apparent refusal by the FDA to invoke for this food additive the so-called Delaney Amendment to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act?”
The Delaney Amendment makes it illegal to allow any residues of cancer causing chemicals in foods. In his concluding testimony Gross asked, “Given the cancer causing potential of aspartame how would the FDA justify its position that it views a certain amount of aspartame as constituting an allowable daily intake or ’safe’ level of it? Is that position in effect not equivalent to setting a ‘tolerance’ for this food additive and thus a violation of that law? And if the FDA itself elects to violate the law, who is left to protect the health of the public?” Congressional Record SID835:131 (August 1, l985)
The prestigious Ramazzini studies proved that aspartame is a multipotential carcinogen. These studies have not been disproven. What we saw was a lot of rebuttal by the aspartame industry and their influence with government agencies. You mention EFSA who said the rats had respiratory disease. That was a dumb rebuttal since respiratory disease is the dying process. Further, Dr. Herman Koeter before his resignation released a press release admitting they were pressured by industry to hijack science. Nobody disputes that the aspartame industry is very influential with government agencies and Dr. Koeter simply admitted it.
So lets see if independent researchers do studies the rats were likely infected with Mycoplasma, but if the aspartame manufacturer does a study it would have to be correct. Dr. Ralph Walton did research for 60 Minutes and showed that 92% of all independent peer reviewed studies show the problems but one funded by industry show it to be safe. You must be running out of excuses.
When we get victims off aspartame their symptoms usually disappear unless the damage is too severe or they have some aspartame fatal disease like cancer. Note they don’t take folic acid and get well, they get off aspartame and get well. I can’t help but wonder if your problem is you’re addicted. Why do you protect the aspartame industry? Everything is a matter of public record from how it was approved through the political chicanery of Don Rumsfeld, the attempt to have the manufacturer indicted for fraud and scientific peer reviewed research by independent researchers. Here is James Turner, Atty, explaining about Rumsfeld in Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World.
You can’t win John Garst. We won’t let you stumble others. And you’re really scrapping the barrel by insinuating financial gain. Some activists have lost everything, their homes, their health and their families. They just want to prevent others from going through what they have. It has cost me a fortune to do this for 19 years.
Dr. Betty Martini, D.Hum, Founder
Mission Possible Intl
9270 River Club Parkway
Duluth, Georgia 30097
mpwhi.com, dorway.com and wnho.net
Aspartame Toxicity Center, holisticmed.com
Hi Betty,
Thank you for all that you’ve done to spread awareness about the risks of aspartame, including taking the time to respond to John Garst. Hopefully most people will realize that regardless of whether aspartame is the direct cause of symptoms or a facilitator of symptoms through other conditions such as folate deficiency, the fact remains that it still poses significant risks.
John Garst claims that he has absolutely no financial or biasing connection with Aspartame related industries. And that may be true. Nevertheless, he is misleading readers when he claims that aspartame is safe. It isn’t.
Many years ago, Aspartame nearly destroyed my daughter. On one can a day, this brilliant girl developed intellectual deterioration, a drastic personality change, epileptic-type seizures and she began to lose her vision in both eyes.
Studies on her brain and vision in Boston confirmed that it was the aspartame that had made her so sick. She stopped drinking it and recovered.
Aspartame gives me classic migraine headaches. And, it causes a multitude of additional problems for others who consume it.
All Aspartame victims have busy lives. They wouldn’t take their own valuable time to fight to have Aspartame banned from our food supply if they didn’t think it was crucial to the health of the American people and to others all over the world.
Aspartame is consumed by pregnant women as well as children and the elderly. This has to stop!
Aspartame is harmful and useless!!!!! Stopping the sale of aspartame would lessen many mental and physical illnesses and would help insurance companies and employers!!!!!
The only people who fight to keep it on the market are either profiting financially in some way or they are totally addicted to it.
Hi Barbara,
I’m sorry to hear about the trouble that aspartame has caused your family and I appreciate you sharing your story.
I believe that anyone with good common sense will realize that John Garst is merely saying that aspartame is a facilitator of problems in conjunction with folate deficiency. Regardless of whether aspartame is a direct cause of its associated problems or if it’s just a facilitator, there’s still the potential for serious problems and it doesn’t make any sense to use it.
Vin:
You are doing good work with your efforts here on this site.
I have just had published an article that tries to pull together the chemisty behind the cause of the problems that we are seeing in the general population with the introduction of Aspartame into the diet of the world some 30 years ago.
I would like input from people who have the time to read the article. Here is a site where the prepublication version of the piece can be found.
The science is aimed at those with a medical background but I think the average person can see where I am going with the logic.
Keep up what you are doing here…I think you may be saving lives.
http://www.sweetpoison.com/articles/1209/methanol_a_chemical_troja.html
Kindest regards,
Woodrow C. Monte
Professor of Food Science
Takaka, New Zealand
Hi Professor Monte, thank you for your kind feedback and for sharing your work!
I didn’t realize that canned goods are a source of methanol. As with aspartame, it’s just one of the many reasons why it’s most sensible to eat foods in their natural and whole form.
I’ve never been a fan of the idea that alcohol has health benefits. The fact that ethanol helps to prevent formaldehyde formation means that at least some of these benefits may only be a compensation for methanol consumption. I think it would make much more sense to simply avoid dietary sources of methanol such as canned goods and aspartame which I think is the same as what you’re suggesting with your references to the hunter and gatherer diet.
The idea that ethanol fermentation in the gut, presumably from undigested carbohydrates, can also help to reduce formaldehyde formation is interesting as well, but the proliferation of undesirable bacteria can be a nasty trade off. I wonder if there’s a point at which such fermentation will help to protect against methanol but not disrupt the flora balance of the intestines. Either way, I completely agree that avoiding methanol through a natural and healthy diet is the best bet, and it certainly shouldn’t require a medical background to realize this.
Vin or anyone else,
I made the decision to cut aspartame out of my diet several months ago. The toughest part was cutting out gum. Anybody know of a decent gum without artificial sweetners? Thanks.
Hi Jared, I apologize that it’s taken me so long to respond. I must have missed your comment.
Chewing stimulates the production of digestive enzymes, and when you’re chewing gum, these enzymes aren’t needed because there’s no food to digest. This is an important consideration because the production of digestive enzymes can impair the body’s ability to produce the metabolic enzymes support optimal function and keep us healthy. As such, by chewing gum, it’s likely that you’re wasting some of your body’s valuable resources and I suggest that you consider avoiding gum altogether rather than just finding a brand that doesn’t contain aspartame.
I will say that after researching and carefully weighing the evidence pro/con on aspartame,my conclusion is that John Garst is 100% correct.
I realize the need for some people to always have a bias to find some conspiracy theory on something.
The most telling and really the end of discussion is this:
Lawyers would LOVE to win a lawsuit against aspartame manufacturers for obvious rea$onS but no case will ever be won against aspartame because the causality for all
these outrageous claims simply isnt there.
Just think about how rabid lawyers can be(not all lawyers). There are ALREADY lawsuits
against Toyota! You think lawyers wouldnt love to find something/anything against aspartame? Probably billions of pounds of aspartame have been consumed over _decades_! Where or where is the fallout? We have maybe a handful of incidents in which people “think” aspartame caused their problem. Yah right…
Hi Mike,
John Garst acknowledges that aspartame can cause problems, but only in conjunction with a folate deficiency. Despite the fact that he says “a good percentage of the population is deficient in folate,” and therefore more susceptible to problems caused by aspartame, he then claims that aspartame is “perfectly safe.” You’re certainly entitled to your opinion, but how you can conclude that this is 100% correct despite it being a contradiction is beyond me.
I wouldn’t be surprised at all if you’re right about there being lawyers who’d like to jump at the opportunity to profit from claims made against aspartame. However, this merely reflects negatively on the lawyers who would do such a thing without solid evidence and provides absolutely no indication of aspartame’s safety. This situation could exist just as easily regardless of how safe or dangerous aspartame truly is.
I will mention for people to pubmed search on the risk comparison between table sugar(which people rightfully realize to be “safe” when consumed in moderation) vs
aspartame.
Start with sugar and obesity. I get 18345 studies back. Asparatame and obesity = 26 studies.
Sugar and blindness = 810 related studies. Aspartame and blindness(chuckle) = 2
I will preempt a bad argument:
Aspartame has been used AT LEAST 33 years as an artificial sweetener so certainly
researchers have been given ample time to conduct studies.
The association between aspartame and claimed side effects is lacking so why would
a group of researchers spend money conducting such a silly study?
Mike,
So according to your logic, aspartame is safe because less research has been done on it than sugar? Research doesn’t happen unless there’s funding for it, and funding generally doesn’t materialize unless there’s a potential for profit. As such, the amount of research done on a particular subject can give a misleading representation of the subject’s significance. Furthermore, sugar is a much more prominent part of the diet. It’s in many more foods and beverages than aspartame, and in much larger quantities. Even though aspartame is marketed as a replacement for sugar, I think you’re comparing apples to oranges.
Regardless of the holes in your logic, you haven’t presented a single justification for why someone should risk consuming a synthetic and controversial food additive.
I thought you people would like to know, I’ve just been so many countries from Italy to Croacia, Spain, France, Albania, Portugal, etc. in three weeks. I’m happy to report after 19 years of warning the world as founder of Mission Possible Intl, there is one word people say when you mention aspartame in any of these countries – POISON!
In Italy they call aspasrtame aspartommy. They don’t like it there either. The Italians are more expressive and passionate. When the word was mentioned one woman just said “aspartommy”!!! and spit and spit and spit.
One thing has been accomplished – the word knows aspartame is poison. No wonder they changed the name to AminoSweet! However, the stories of the sick and dying are horrible. Makes you want those responsible for this deadly poison to be drenched in the blood of its victims and fed to the sharks. I’m writing now a report of around the world , part of it anyway, in 21 days!
Also, as to aspartame and blindness unfortunately there are millions: In l986 because of the blindness they petitioned the FDA to ban it and took it all the way to the Supreme Court. Politics again won out. We have all kinds of posts on it.
All my best,
Betty
Mission Possible Intl Founder – warning people off aspar-tommy the world over!
http://www.mpwhi.com, http://www.dorway.com, http://www.wnho.net
Aspartame Toxicity Center, http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame