opales, you say I'm ignoring the studies that show aspartame to be safe. However, I see you ignoring the studies that show the opposite, that show it's toxic. The studies showing safety are all done by those with a profit motive just like tobacco companies funding scientists who are willling to say it doesn't cause cancer. The studies showing toxicity were done by those with no axe to grind.
All the claimed adverse effects of aspartame a) are based on faulty logic to begin with b) have not been shown in actual conducted studies c) if there is one study showing some adverse effect, the results of that study have not been able to be replicated. The body of knowledge is what matters in science, if some results cannot be replicated, there is great reason to believe that the original setting was somehow flawed. This is how it works in every field.
You suggest all these studies showing aspartames safety are somehow biased by drug companies. I say that every scientist has an agenda, some just are able to keep it apart from the actual science. And the agendas that effect the results most are not necessarily monetary. I actually think that in the last twenty years, the "natural" folks have tweaked the results much more than the alledgedly "company funded" scientists (and the natural folks too might have money involved). Linus Pauling and his institute conducted a ton of studies in the 70's claiming vitamin C to be the ailment on everything on earth. That was actually the start of the vitamin craze in western societies. However, those results could not be replicated despite numerous attempts, and once those research settings were scrutinized, a number of distorting factors were realized, and the science community just basicly hammered away all those results (it is funny because you still might see references to those original Pauling vitamin C studies. If someone does that, run away).
Don't you think its odd that many aspartame adverse effect studies have been conducted by individual scientists (like Olney) having consistent results study after study, yet, no one is able replicate their results? You don't suspect there might be an agenda playing there? Also, as stated earlier, on average there is a huge difference between different scientific journals in regards to quality of science. The prominent "pro-aspartame" studies/articles have been pulished in journals like BMJ or NEJM, the "anti-aspartame" articles are published many times in not as near respected journals, which should tell you something about the validity of the results. All references are not created equal. It sometimes very difficult to tell which journals are quality ones, that is why the anti-aspartame sites in the net might seem to have a impressive resume of references (even though they are not). Here is an example (actually quite sickening one in my view) from a field very close to us as pointed in [1] (Aubrey being one of the authors):
This legitimate effort must be clearly distinguished from the antiaging quackery that has made its way into the contemporary lay literature. For example, two so-called scientific “journals” (Journal of Longevity and The International Journal of Anti-Aging Medicine) that appear on the surface to be traditional refereed publications are in fact little more than advertisements for a pseudoscientific antiaging industry. By contrast, the similarly titled Journal of Anti-Aging Medicine is a refereed scientific journal. We want to make sure that the public is aware of both the scientific and the nonscientific use of the term “antiaging medicine.”
xanadu:
Since when has alcohol and tobacco "passed the test of time"? They both have been found to be toxic leading to addiction, disease and death. They have been around a long time but so has arsenic and I sure wouldn't eat any of that. No toxicity has been associated with stevia.
I merely replied to Dantecubits claim that the test of time was a clear sign showing that stevia could not be toxic. As I said (and based on your above quote, you must agree), test of time is not a good criterion because some substances have been consumed for long time despite their "blatant" toxicity.
(dantecubit)
QUOTE (lemon)
Hundreds of safety studies exist on stevia. Japan has EXTENSIVELY replaced refined sugar and all but banned artificial sweeteners in their food.
It's been in use for over 1,500 years in South America, 30 years of food and beverage use in Japan (40% of all sweetening). China has been using it for 20 years in food and beverage. All the pacific rim. Israel... UNQUOTE (lemon)
This in my mind is some of the strongest evidence for stevia's safety. People just wouldn't go on consuming something if it was toxic.
Lemon, I am not going to start ranting how I think stevia is unsafe, because I actually don't think so. My point regarding stevia was that the science behind artificial sweeters safety is actually stronger than with stevia (and if we look at western science only, this probably holds true. I am not in position on the other hand to evaluate the Japanese literature, which I do believe might have been disregarded without a good cause). I started this thread because I think (and still do) that artificial sweeteners get unduly disrespected. I think sugar is the real killer and artificial sweeteners are actually pretty good way of avoiding it, so we should not condemn it without a good cause (which at least based on contemporary science, does not exist). Also, I don't think that it is anyones best interest that such claims that I have seen in this and other threads conserning aspartame just get thrown up in the air without any backing to it. It is difficult to cope with all the available information as it is, we should not contribute to it by spreading mere rumours as facts.
[1]de Grey AD, Gavrilov L, Olshansky SJ, Coles LS, Cutler RG, Fossel M, Harman SM, Antiaging technology and pseudoscience, Science, 296(5568), 656, Apr 2002
LongeCity
