• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

Aspartame is SAFE and DOES NOT cause cancer


  • Please log in to reply
108 replies to this topic

#1 zoolander

  • Guest
  • 4,724 posts
  • 55
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia

Posted 12 September 2007 - 05:58 AM


First of all I have to apologize for bringing up the topic of aspartame. The reason I bring it up again is because I want to kill a myth that has circulated like wild fire for so many years in health and health associates fields.

Crit Rev Toxicol. 2007 Sep;37(8):629-727.

    Aspartame: a safety evaluation based on current use levels, regulations, and toxicological and epidemiological studies.
    Magnuson BA, Burdock GA, Doull J, Kroes RM, Marsh GM, Pariza MW, Spencer PS, Waddell WJ, Walker R, Williams GM.

    Burdock Group, Washington, DC, USA.

    Aspartame is a methyl ester of a dipeptide used as a synthetic nonnutritive sweetener in over 90 countries worldwide in over 6000 products. The purpose of this investigation was to review the scientific literature on the absorption and metabolism, the current consumption levels worldwide, the toxicology, and recent epidemiological studies on aspartame. Current use levels of aspartame, even by high users in special subgroups, remains well below the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and European Food Safety Authority established acceptable daily intake levels of 50 and 40 mg/kg bw/day, respectively. Consumption of large doses of aspartame in a single bolus dose will have an effect on some biochemical parameters, including plasma amino acid levels and brain neurotransmitter levels. The rise in plasma levels of phenylalanine and aspartic acid following administration of aspartame at doses less than or equal to 50 mg/kg bw do not exceed those observed postprandially. Acute, subacute and chronic toxicity studies with aspartame, and its decomposition products, conducted in mice, rats, hamsters and dogs have consistently found no adverse effect of aspartame with doses up to at least 4000 mg/kg bw/day. 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.

    PMID: 17828671 [PubMed - in process]


'nuff said

#2 Liquidus

  • Guest
  • 446 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Earth

Posted 12 September 2007 - 06:14 AM

Thanks for posting this, I hope that's accurate because I've fallen prey to that myth. I don't think aspartame is outright deadly, I mean, I associate my diet with aspartame somewhat regularly. But to know that it's actually safe, is another thing.

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for NUTRITION to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#3 zoolander

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 4,724 posts
  • 55
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia

Posted 12 September 2007 - 06:23 AM

you're welcome G Snake

#4 dawg21

  • Guest
  • 8 posts
  • 0

Posted 12 September 2007 - 06:43 AM

Life-Span Exposure to Low Doses of Aspartame Beginning during Prenatal Life Increases Cancer Effects in Rats.Soffritti M, Belpoggi F, Tibaldi E, Esposti DD, Lauriola M.
Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center, European Ramazzini Foundation of Oncology and Environmental Sciences, Bologna, Italy.

BACKGROUND: In a previous study conducted at the Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center of the European Ramazzini Foundation (CMCRC/ERF), we demonstrated for the first time that aspartame (APM) is a multipotent carcinogenic agent when various doses are administered with feed to Sprague-Dawley rats from 8 weeks of age throughout the life span. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this second study is to better quantify the carcinogenic risk of APM, beginning treatment during fetal life. METHODS: We studied groups of 70-95 male and female Sprague-Dawley rats administered APM (2,000, 400, or 0 ppm) with feed from the 12th day of fetal life until natural death. RESULTS: Our results show a) a significant dose-related increase of malignant tumor-bearing animals in males (p < 0.01), particularly in the group treated with 2,000 ppm APM (p < 0.01); b) a significant increase in incidence of lymphomas/leukemias in males treated with 2,000 ppm (p < 0.05) and a significant dose-related increase in incidence of lymphomas/leukemias in females (p < 0.01), particularly in the 2,000-ppm group (p < 0.01); and c) a significant dose-related increase in incidence of mammary cancer in females (p < 0.05), particularly in the 2,000-ppm group (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this carcinogenicity bioassay confirm and reinforce the first experimental demonstration of APM's multipotential carcinogenicity at a dose level close to the acceptable daily intake for humans. Furthermore, the study demonstrates that when life-span exposure to APM begins during fetal life, its carcinogenic effects are increased.



Results of long-term carcinogenicity bioassay on Sprague-Dawley rats exposed to aspartame administered in feed.Belpoggi F, Soffritti M, Padovani M, Degli Esposti D, Lauriola M, Minardi F.
Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center, European Foundation of Oncology and Environmental Sciences B. Ramazzini, 40010 Bentivoglio, Bologna, Italy.

Aspartame (APM) is one of the most widely used artificial sweeteners in the world. Its ever-growing use in more than 6000 products, such as soft drinks, chewing gum, candy, desserts, etc., has been accompanied by rising consumer concerns regarding its safety, in particular its potential long-term carcinogenic effects. In light of the inadequacy of the carcinogenicity bioassays performed in the 1970s and 1980s, a long-term mega-experiment on APM was undertaken at the Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center of the European Ramazzini Foundation on groups of male and female Sprague-Dawley rats (100-150/sex/group), 8 weeks old at the start of the experiment. APM was administered in feed at concentrations of 100,000, 50,000, 10,000, 2,000, 400, 80, or 0 ppm. Treatment lasted until spontaneous death of the animals. The results of the study demonstrate that APM causes: (a) an increased incidence of malignant tumor-bearing animals, with a positive significant trend in both sexes, and in particular in females treated at 50,000 ppm (P < or = 0.01) when compared to controls; (b) an increase in lymphomas-leukemias, with a positive significant trend in both sexes, and in particular in females treated at doses of 100,000 (P < or = 0.01), 50,000 (P < or = 0.01), 10,000 (P < or = 0.05), 2000 (P < or = 0.05), and 400 ppm (P < or = 0.01); © a statistically significant increased incidence, with a positive significant trend, of transitional cell carcinomas of the renal pelvis and ureter in females and particularly in those treated at 100,000 ppm (P < or = 0.05); and (d) an increased incidence of malignant schwannomas of the peripheral nerves, with a positive trend in males (P < or = 0.05). The results of this mega-experiment indicate that APM, in the tested experimental conditions, is a multipotential carcinogenic agent.



First experimental demonstration of the multipotential carcinogenic effects of aspartame administered in the feed to Sprague-Dawley rats.Soffritti M, Belpoggi F, Degli Esposti D, Lambertini L, Tibaldi E, Rigano A.
Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center, European Ramazzini Foundation of Oncology and Environmental Sciences, Bologna, Italy. crcfr@ramazzini.it

The Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center of the European Ramazzini Foundation has conducted a long-term bioassay on aspartame (APM), a widely used artificial sweetener. APM was administered with feed to 8-week-old Sprague-Dawley rats (100-150/sex/group), at concentrations of 100,000, 50,000, 10,000, 2,000, 400, 80, or 0 ppm. The treatment lasted until natural death, at which time all deceased animals underwent complete necropsy. Histopathologic evaluation of all pathologic lesions and of all organs and tissues collected was routinely performed on each animal of all experimental groups. The results of the study show for the first time that APM, in our experimental conditions, causes a) an increased incidence of malignant-tumor-bearing animals with a positive significant trend in males (p < or = 0.05) and in females (p < or = 0.01), in particular those females treated at 50,000 ppm (p < or = 0.01); b) an increase in lymphomas and leukemias with a positive significant trend in both males (p < or = 0.05) and females (p < or = 0.01), in particular in females treated at doses of 100,000 (p < or = 0.01), 50,000 (p < or = 0.01), 10,000 (p < or = 0.05), 2,000 (p < or = 0.05), or 400 ppm (p < or = 0.01); c) a statistically significant increased incidence, with a positive significant trend (p < or = 0.01), of transitional cell carcinomas of the renal pelvis and ureter and their precursors (dysplasias) in females treated at 100,000 (p < or = 0.01), 50,000 (p < or = 0.01), 10,000 (p < or = 0.01), 2,000 (p < or = 0.05), or 400 ppm (p < or = 0.05); and d) an increased incidence of malignant schwannomas of peripheral nerves with a positive trend (p < or = 0.05) in males. The results of this mega-experiment indicate that APM is a multipotential carcinogenic agent, even at a daily dose of 20 mg/kg body weight, much less than the current acceptable daily intake. On the basis of these results, a reevaluation of the present guidelines on the use and consumption of APM is urgent and cannot be delayed.

#5 zoolander

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 4,724 posts
  • 55
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia

Posted 12 September 2007 - 07:09 AM

Each to their own dawg21. Personally, I'm more inclined to go with the critical review/saftey evaluation of Aspartame in humans as well as animals as opposed to single studies with rats.

EDIT: change of wording for clarity

#6 trevyn

  • Guest
  • 87 posts
  • 43

Posted 12 September 2007 - 07:23 AM

I find aspartame ridiculously easy to avoid in a healthy diet, so I'm playing it safe.

#7 mike250

  • Guest
  • 981 posts
  • 9

Posted 12 September 2007 - 07:23 AM

thanks for that paper zoo.

#8 scottl

  • Guest
  • 2,177 posts
  • 2

Posted 12 September 2007 - 10:23 AM

I used to work with a client with multiple sclerosis. Aspartame reproducibly made her MS symptoms worse. I still don't like the stuff.

#9 Matt

  • Guest
  • 2,862 posts
  • 149
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • NO

Posted 12 September 2007 - 02:57 PM

I think a lot of the anecdotal problems people report when using Aspartame are mostly psychological problems that already existed. Aspartame is probably safe, especially at the doses humans get. I've never noticed ANY negative effect that I can pin down to a sweetener.

#10 scottl

  • Guest
  • 2,177 posts
  • 2

Posted 12 September 2007 - 03:31 PM

I think a lot of the anecdotal problems people report when using Aspartame are mostly psychological problems that already existed. Aspartame is probably safe, especially at the doses humans get. I've never noticed ANY negative effect that I can pin down to a sweetener.


Note I said reproducible i.e. take it symptom appears, stop taking it symptom stops, take it symptom appears, etc.

"I've never noticed ANY negative effect that I can pin down to a sweetener"

And the fact that your very young healthy body demostrates no visible symptoms from aspartame means that it cannot be resulting in any harm?

I'm hardly a aspartame fanatic and I've been known to consume small amounts of it occasionally. For those who consume sweetners regularly though...

#11 Matt

  • Guest
  • 2,862 posts
  • 149
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • NO

Posted 12 September 2007 - 03:34 PM

i don't buy the stuff or add it intentionally to anything by the way. I don't need sweeteners. But I don't freak out either if it is any product.

#12 Shepard

  • Member, Director, Moderator
  • 6,360 posts
  • 932
  • Location:Auburn, AL

Posted 12 September 2007 - 04:38 PM

Very few things are safe for every individual in a population. That doesn't mean you take individual experiences to make a broad determination based upon them. Especially if those individuals have pre-existing conditions.

#13 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 12 September 2007 - 04:42 PM

Scottl, given the wide spectrum of human physiological variation, one person's reaction to Aspartame is not a good basis to claim it is poison (not saying you are doing this...but many people do). Peanuts kill some people. They don't kill me.

There is another thread here at Imminst about the "rat study". Someone calculated the human equivalent Aspartame intake from that study and it was analogous to a person drinking five 20 oz bottles of diet soda every day of every year for 54 years. No doubt some people do this, but not many.

I am like Matt. I don't eat much of anything with Aspartame in it, but when I do encounter it, I don't freak out. It is kind-of the same with UV sunlight. I take precautions to not get burned but I don't freak out if I am outside for a half hour without "protection".

#14 krillin

  • Guest
  • 1,516 posts
  • 60
  • Location:USA

Posted 12 September 2007 - 05:37 PM

I think a lot of the anecdotal problems people report when using Aspartame are mostly psychological problems that already existed. Aspartame is probably safe, especially at the doses humans get. I've never noticed ANY negative effect that I can pin down to a sweetener.


There is a plausible mechanism. NMDA activation can weaken the blood-brain barrier, which is already weakened in MS patients.

Biochem Pharmacol. 2007 Jan 15;73(2):228-36.
Glutamate-stimulated peroxynitrite production in a brain-derived endothelial cell line is dependent on N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor activation.
Scott GS, Bowman SR, Smith T, Flower RJ, Bolton C.
Centre of Biochemical Pharmacology and Experimental Pathology, The William Harvey Research Institute, St. Bartholomew's Hospital Medical College, London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, United Kingdom.

There is accumulating and convincing evidence indicating a role for glutamate in the pathogenesis of the human demyelinating disease multiple sclerosis (MS). Studies in experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE), the animal model of MS, demonstrate that pharmacological inhibition of specific glutamate receptors suppresses neurological symptoms and prevents blood-brain barrier (BBB) breakdown. The mechanisms through which glutamate influences BBB function during EAE remain unclear. Glutamate triggers the production of nitric oxide and superoxide, which can lead to the formation of peroxynitrite (ONOO(-)). Recent studies have implicated ONOO(-) in the loss of neurovascular integrity during EAE. We propose that glutamate contributes to BBB breakdown via the actions of ONOO(-). The present investigation examined glutamate-induced ONOO(-) formation in the b.End3 brain-derived endothelial cell line. b.End3 cells were incubated with a concentration range of glutamate and ONOO(-) production was assessed over time. Results showed a concentration- and time-dependent increase in ONOO(-) levels in glutamate-treated cells that were suppressed by selective and non-selective inhibitors of ONOO(-)-mediated reactions. Specific activation of b.End3-associated NMDA receptors also resulted in a concentration-dependent increase in ONOO(-) production. The ability of b.End3 cells to respond to the presence of glutamate was confirmed through the detection of NMDA receptor immnuoreactivity in cell extracts. In addition, the use of the NMDA receptor antagonists MK-801 and memantine reduced glutamate-mediated ONOO(-) generation from b.End3 cells. The data reinforce the important relationship between glutamate and the NMDA receptor, positioned at neurovascular sites, which may be of particular relevance to the pathogenesis of demyelinating disease.

PMID: 17118345

#15 DukeNukem

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 141
  • Location:Dallas, Texas

Posted 12 September 2007 - 05:48 PM

I find aspartame ridiculously easy to avoid in a healthy diet, so I'm playing it safe.

Amen.

My bottom-line: The products that use aspartame are almost always pro-aging for other reasons anyway. In other words, aspartame is a main-stay of over-processed foods, that typically have other bad chemicals, such as food colorings, preservatives, phosphoric acid, and so on.

Plus, there are other non-cal or very low-cal sweeteners that are not surrounded in controversy, such as xylitol, Lo Han (Jarrow's makes a great Lo Han/Xylitol powder blend) and stevia.

Aspartame might be safe, but [1] I have for-sure-safe substitute sweeteners I can turn to already, and [2] I prefer not to support the company (Monsanto) that makes aspartame.

#16 scottl

  • Guest
  • 2,177 posts
  • 2

Posted 12 September 2007 - 07:58 PM

Right.

There is no NEED for ANYONE TO EVER use an artificial sweetner.

If you choose to use one, there are numerous other less controversial choices. Personally I use stevia, but xylitol is fine also.

To adress Mind's point.

Peanut allergy is a well known phemomena and who it does and does not affect is well known (usually). Given aspartame's effects in that one person it is clearly doing something to her nervous system. Is it totally unreasonable to wonder if it is doing something of a similar nature in other peoples nervous system and the effects are much milder/require prolonged/frequent exposure?

As I said, I don't sweat small amounts of the stuff, but"

***What level of certainty do you require to avoid something for which there is no need to take at all?***
Edit: and for which there are numerous alternatives.

Edited by scottl, 13 September 2007 - 03:24 AM.


#17 zoolander

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 4,724 posts
  • 55
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia

Posted 13 September 2007 - 01:39 AM

I missed the target. Whoops. The main reason I posted the review was not to promote aspartame use. My aim was to shoot down a myth that has been circulating in the health forums. In general I personally do my best to eat and dress clean by minimising the chemical load.

As a few people have already mentioned, aspartame is easy to avoid but it's not going to kill you or cause cancer if you choose to have it as the only option when your out. Duke mentioned Xylitol. Xylitol is an amazing sweetner that tastes exactly like sugar. It's great

#18 wydell

  • Guest
  • 503 posts
  • -1

Posted 13 September 2007 - 02:16 AM

I started Xyliol and Stevia two weeks ago and I am hooked. I now use a fair amount of each daily. I have not used a sweetner in the past couple of years, so it is not a sugar replacement for me. I hope I don't find out anything negative about them a couple of years down the road.

#19 luv2increase

  • Guest
  • 2,529 posts
  • 37
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 13 September 2007 - 03:56 AM

First of all I have to apologize for bringing up the topic of aspartame. The reason I bring it up again is because I want to kill a myth that has circulated like wild fire for so many years in health and health associates fields.

Crit Rev Toxicol. 2007 Sep;37(8):629-727.

    Aspartame: a safety evaluation based on current use levels, regulations, and toxicological and epidemiological studies.
    Magnuson BA, Burdock GA, Doull J, Kroes RM, Marsh GM, Pariza MW, Spencer PS, Waddell WJ, Walker R, Williams GM.

    Burdock Group, Washington, DC, USA.

    Aspartame is a methyl ester of a dipeptide used as a synthetic nonnutritive sweetener in over 90 countries worldwide in over 6000 products. The purpose of this investigation was to review the scientific literature on the absorption and metabolism, the current consumption levels worldwide, the toxicology, and recent epidemiological studies on aspartame. Current use levels of aspartame, even by high users in special subgroups, remains well below the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and European Food Safety Authority established acceptable daily intake levels of 50 and 40 mg/kg bw/day, respectively. Consumption of large doses of aspartame in a single bolus dose will have an effect on some biochemical parameters, including plasma amino acid levels and brain neurotransmitter levels. The rise in plasma levels of phenylalanine and aspartic acid following administration of aspartame at doses less than or equal to 50 mg/kg bw do not exceed those observed postprandially. Acute, subacute and chronic toxicity studies with aspartame, and its decomposition products, conducted in mice, rats, hamsters and dogs have consistently found no adverse effect of aspartame with doses up to at least 4000 mg/kg bw/day. 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.

    PMID: 17828671 [PubMed - in process]


'nuff said




from http://www.burdockgr...om/about_us.php



We offer our clients - including many industry leaders - technically rigorous, comprehensive safety and regulatory management of their products.


Burdock Group offers the highest quality consulting services for the safety and regulatory issues facing the Food and Beverage, Dietary Supplement and Cosmetics and Personal Care Industries.





I'd say that we have a conflict of interest here Zoo. These ppl are hired by "industry leaders" such as Coke, Pepsi, etc... who have an enormous special vested interest that there is no negative propaganda against aspartame.

If you don't understand what I am saying, here it is in layman's terms. This was an "EVALUATION" done by a group hired by "PEOPLE WHO WANT ASPARTAME TO STAY ON MARKET". There was no new experiment, nada. There wasn't even any quotes from previous experiments. They expect innocent, gullible ppl to take their word, and you did. lol Not only that, you posted it here like it was the end of ballgame. lol


Tricks are for kids [mellow]. You are so gullible Zoo. You out of all ppl. Come on!

#20 luv2increase

  • Guest
  • 2,529 posts
  • 37
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 13 September 2007 - 04:15 AM

Scottl, given the wide spectrum of human physiological variation, one person's reaction to Aspartame is not a good basis to claim it is poison (not saying you are doing this...but many people do). Peanuts kill some people. They don't kill me.



Hey so and so died at the age of 90, and they smoked 2 packs of cigarettes a day. From this, I believe that cigarettes are ok. Hey, after all, they didn't kill him.

#21 zoolander

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 4,724 posts
  • 55
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia

Posted 13 September 2007 - 07:42 AM

I was wondering why you were quoting that burdock reference. To be honest I missed that one. I will look into it. Thanks for pointing it out anyway.

#22 zoolander

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 4,724 posts
  • 55
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia

Posted 13 September 2007 - 08:32 AM

I assumed that the original reveiw I published to be reliable and free of conflict. Why? because in general this journal is fairly well respected as has a reasonbly high impact factor (6.742). Anyhow let's just assume for one moment that the study was published with a conflict of interest. We'll do this because luv2increase has suggested the conflict of interest and it's better to be on the cautious side right?

Anyhow.......the following preceedings of a conference on Aspartamne points out a very interesting point (in bold)

Food Chem Toxicol. 2007 Jul;45(7):1308-13. Epub 2007 Feb 22.

    First European conference on aspartame: putting safety and benefits into perspective. Synopsis of presentations and conclusions.
   
Renwick AG, Nordmann H.

    School of Medicine, University of Southampton, Bassett Crescent East, Southampton SO16 7PX, UK. agr@soton.ac.uk

    A Conference was held in Paris in 2006 to review the safety and benefits arising from the replacement of sucrose with the intense sweetener aspartame. The intakes of aspartame are only about 10% of the acceptable daily intake, even by high consumers, so that the safety margin is about 3 orders of magnitude. The safety of aspartame was confirmed in the EFSA Opinion of a recent controversial rodent cancer bioassay. There is increasing evidence that even modest reductions in the intake of calories can reduce the risk factors associated with a number of diseases, such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease. A key issue addressed at the conference was whether the replacement of sucrose with aspartame could result in a prolonged decrease in calorie intake that was of similar magnitude to that necessary to produce a health benefit. A recent meta-analysis of published data showed that an adequate, prolonged weight reduction could be achieved with aspartame. It was recognised that risk assessment alone gave an unbalanced impression to regulators and consumers, and that in the future quantitative risk-benefit analyses should be able to provide more comprehensive advice.

    PMID: 17397982 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


at the bottom of the paper

Conflict of interest statement

AGR is a scientific consultant to The International Sweeteners Association (ISA), Avenue des Gaulois 9, 1040 Brussels, Belgium, which is an organisation of producers and users of intense sweeteners.


Considering that the above presents the details of a conference then it's understandable that it be sponsered. This is no different to a conference on cryopreservation being sponsered by ALCOR.

Ann Oncol. 2007 Jan;18(1):40-4. Epub 2006 Oct 16.Click here to read Links
    Artificial sweeteners and cancer risk in a network of case-control studies.
    Gallus S, Scotti L, Negri E, Talamini R, Franceschi S, Montella M, Giacosa A, Dal Maso L, La Vecchia C.

    Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri, Via Eritrea 62, 20157 Milan, Italy. gallus@marionegri.it

    BACKGROUND: The role of sweeteners on cancer risk has been widely debated over the last few decades. To provide additional information on saccharin and other sweeteners (mainly aspartame), we considered data from a large network of case-control studies. METHODS: An integrated network of case-control studies has been conducted between 1991 and 2004 in Italy. Cases were 598 patients with incident, histologically confirmed cancers of the oral cavity and pharynx, 304 of the oesophagus, 1225 of the colon, 728 of the rectum, 460 of the larynx, 2569 of the breast, 1031 of the ovary, 1294 of the prostate and 767 of the kidney (renal cell carcinoma). Controls were 7028 patients (3301 men and 3727 women) admitted to the same hospitals as cases for acute, non-neoplastic disorders. Odds ratios (ORs), and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs), were derived by unconditional logistic regression models. RESULTS: The ORs for consumption of saccharin were 0.83 (95% CI 0.30-2.29) for cancers of the oral cavity and pharynx, 1.58 (95% CI 0.59-4.25) for oesophageal, 0.95 (95% CI 0.67-1.35) for colon, 0.93 (95% CI 0.60-1.45) for rectal, 1.55 (95% CI 0.76-3.16) for laryngeal, 1.01 (95% CI 0.77-1.33) for breast, 0.46 (95% CI 0.29-0.74) for ovarian, 0.91 (95% CI 0.59-1.40) for prostate and 0.79 (95% CI 0.49-1.28) for kidney cancer. The ORs for consumption of other sweeteners, mainly aspartame, were 0.77 (95% CI 0.39-1.53) for cancers of the oral cavity and pharynx, 0.77 (95% CI 0.34-1.75) for oesophageal, 0.90 (95% CI 0.70-1.16) for colon, 0.71 (95% CI 0.50-1.02) for rectal, 1.62 (95% CI 0.84-3.14) for laryngeal, 0.80 (95% CI 0.65-0.97) for breast, 0.75 (95% CI 0.56-1.00) for ovarian, 1.23 (95% CI 0.86-1.76) for prostate and 1.03 (95% CI 0.73-1.46) for kidney cancer. A significant inverse trend in risk for increasing categories of total sweeteners was found for breast and ovarian cancer, and a direct one for laryngeal cancer. [b]CONCLUSION: The present work indicates a lack of association between saccharin, aspartame and other sweeteners and the risk of several common neoplasms.

    PMID: 17043096 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


So the odds ratio (OR) for cancer risk with artifical sweeetners is in general low. Correct me if I'm wrong here but what they're saying is the odds of getting cancer from the artifical sweetner is low.

NOTE: don't be fooled by the comment

A significant inverse trend in risk for increasing categories of total sweeteners was found for breast and ovarian cancer, and a direct one for laryngeal cancer.


what they're essential saying here is that the odds ratio for getting cancer from artifical sweetners is actually lower if you use artifical sweetner.

here are a few important notes from the discussion that may help clear up any inconsistencies. We all know that science has it's fair share yay and nay sayers but as scientists reveiewing the yay and nay we always look at the balance. For all references you will have to go to the paper yourself.

A case–control study including 408 cases [3] showed a 60% increased risk for bladder cancer in men (but not in women) who used artificial sweeteners, and a case–control study from the UK, including 841 cases of bladder cancer, found a slight excess risk in nonsmokers only [1, 5]. However, at least seven case–control studies of bladder or low urinary tract cancers from the United States [1, 4, 6, 23–28] found no significant association with consumption of sweeteners, and the largest case–control study analysing the issue, conducted in the United States, including 3010 cases of bladder cancer, found no relation with all sweeteners (OR = 1.01; 95% CI 0.92–1.11 for ever versus never use) [4].


.......

An ecological study indicated a direct correlation between aspartame consumption and the incidence of brain cancer [29], but such ecological studies are known to be subject to ecological fallacy [30]. Further, this hypothesis was not confirmed by studies in animals or humans [31, 32]. Moreover, a case–control study including 56 children with brain cancer from the United States found no excess risk for all sources of aspartame (OR = 1.1; 95% CI 0.5–2.6), age at first aspartame consumption (OR = 1.2; 95% CI 0.4–3.6), duration (OR = 1.1; 95% CI 0.3–3.4) and frequency of consumption (OR = 0.9; 95% CI 0.3–2.4) [31].


......

Scantier information is available on humans with reference to other cancer sites. The present study provides, to our knowledge, the first data on the relation between sweeteners and digestive tract cancers. Since the use of sweeteners is inversely correlated with sugar (Spearman correlation coefficient was –0.27 among the control group), the role of sugar on carcinogenesis should be taken into account. In our data, sugar was directly associated to the risk of digestive tract cancers. Likewise, added sugar was directly related to the risk of gastric cancer in a study conducted in northern Italy [34].


in the above example it is the sweetner and not the artifical sweetner increasing risk of cancer. Hence, using artifical sweetners may infact decrease the risk of cancer and other disease (mentioned above) if it means replacing the sugar and hence calories in your diet.

P.S I couldn't really see any stand out conflicts of interest in the above study. Here's a list of the authors and their respective departments if you wish to look into it Aaron

S Gallus1,*, L Scotti1, E Negri1, R Talamini2, S Franceschi3, M Montella4, A Giacosa5, L Dal Maso2 and C La Vecchia1,6

1 Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche ‘Mario Negri’, Via Eritrea 62, 20157 Milan
2 Servizio di Epidemiologia e Biostatistica, Centro di Riferimento Oncologico, Via Pedemontana Occ.le, 33081 Aviano (Pordenone), Italy
3 International Agency for Research on Cancer, 150 Cours Albert Thomas, F-69372 cedex 08, Lyon, France
4 Unità di Epidemiologia, Istituto Tumori ‘Fondazione Pascale’, Via Mariano Semmola, 80100 Naples
5 Policlinico di Monza, Via Amati 11, 20052 Monza (MI)
6 Istituto di Statistica Medica e Biometria, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Venezian 1, 20133 Milan, Italy



#23 rhodan

  • Guest
  • 76 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Paris, France

Posted 13 September 2007 - 10:24 AM

Thus, for a sensible individual, cutting on his sugary sodas for diet sodas is good if his overall diet is improved : the reduction of carbs outweights the "dangers", if any, of articial sweeteners.

But, for the general population (non-sensible), the diet sodas availability only encourages the trend for non-healthy diets (fast-food, sweet taste, ...) with an excuse (Hey, I have a zero-calorie soda, I can have the fries).

But I am all OK for diet sodas, each person is in charge of his own, bad or good, diet.

#24 REGIMEN

  • Guest
  • 570 posts
  • -1

Posted 13 September 2007 - 11:14 AM

Good points there, rhodan. Implicative structuring for habituated choices is darn near everywar and individuals must realize the necessity of self reflection for true social responsibility.


Time for a serious query: all of those out there that use Stevia, Xylitol, "safe sweeteners"; for which consumables do you apply them?

#25 zoolander

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 4,724 posts
  • 55
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia

Posted 13 September 2007 - 11:24 AM

I use xylitol in porridge, shakes and sometime a hot chocolate drink I make that has 100% raw cacao and cayenne pepper

#26 wydell

  • Guest
  • 503 posts
  • -1

Posted 13 September 2007 - 12:49 PM

Time for a serious query: all of those out there that use Stevia, Xylitol, "safe sweeteners";  for which consumables do you apply them?


I do about four different items in my current sweetened Beverage \ Snack regime


Coffee Cacao Mix - I use a xylitol stevia mix. Stevia does not seem to do it on its own here. I do this about 3 times a day.


Lime or Lemon with With Water - Stevia works fine alone here. It seems to work well with any natural fruit. You only need a little. About twice a day


1 Ounce of 87% Chocolate Daily- I melt it and then add 7 drops of stevia, mix, and then let it harden in the freezer. About once a day


Strawberry\Blueberry daquiri - frozen strawberries, a little bit of blueberries, a little bit of vodka, a little bit of stevia, blend it. About once a day.

#27 dannov

  • Guest
  • 317 posts
  • -1

Posted 13 September 2007 - 07:02 PM

That is a blatant stretch, and a usage of analogy to support an agenda luv2increase.

#28 luv2increase

  • Guest
  • 2,529 posts
  • 37
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 13 September 2007 - 08:13 PM

When it comes to aspartame, it seems as though the outcomes of studies conducted within the continental U.S. are slightly to vastly different than studies conducted within other parts of the world. I wonder why this is?


That is a blatant stretch, and a usage of analogy to support an agenda luv2increase.


How so? Just like the studies done back in the day that showed tobacco was safe and which were in part funded by the tobacco companies themselves???

#29 superpooper

  • Guest
  • 190 posts
  • -0

Posted 14 September 2007 - 03:09 AM

What about high levels of aspartic acid in the blood? I know it's a natural amino acid but some studies have shown dangerous levels of this amino acid after consuming aspartame. I've also heard of studies saying aspartic acid levels are safe after consuming aspartame so I really don't know.

#30 zoolander

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 4,724 posts
  • 55
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia

Posted 14 September 2007 - 03:11 AM

Just like the studies done back in the day that showed tobacco was safe and which were in part funded by the tobacco companies themselves???


WOT!!?? Tobacco isn't safe?




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users