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.

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.

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?

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…

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 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.

http://www.sweetpoison.com/articles/1209/methanol_a_chemical_troja.html

Kindest regards,

Woodrow C. Monte
Professor of Food Science
Takaka, New Zealand

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.”

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.