LONGECITY

I don't know if people saw this one already, since the results were released last Summer. But the NY Times reports on a SEVEN YEAR study on Aspartame by Dr. Morando Soffritti, a cancer researcher in Bologna, Italy.

The article is here: http://www.nytimes.c...article_popular

The full study is here: http://ehp.niehs.nih...1/abstract.html

And here are some snips from the article...

No wonder we never get the truth! Who the hell is going to spend a million bucks to do the right thing?

The research found that the sweetener was associated with unusually high rates of lymphomas, leukemias and other cancers in rats that had been given doses of it starting at what would be equivalent to four to five 20-ounce bottles of diet soda a day for a 150-pound person. The study, which involved 1,900 laboratory rats and cost $1 million, was conducted at the European Ramazzini Foundation of Oncology and Environmental Sciences, a nonprofit organization that studies cancer-causing substances; Dr. Soffritti is its scientific director.

The findings, first released last July, prompted a flurry of criticism from the Calorie Control Council, a trade group for makers of artificial sweeteners that has spent the last 25 years trying to quell fears about aspartame. It said Dr. Soffritti's study flew in the face of four earlier cancer studies that aspartame's creator, G. D. Searle & Company, had underwritten and used to persuade the Food and Drug Administration to approve it for human consumption.

DR. SOFFRITTI, who oversees 180 scientists and researchers in 30 countries who collaborate on toxin research

No regulatory agency has yet acted on Dr. Soffritti's findings, although Roger Williams, a member of Parliament, called for a ban on aspartame in Britain last December. Last month, the European Food Safety Authority, an advisory body for the European Commission, began to review 900 pages of data from Dr. Soffritti; the goal is to finish by May. A commission spokesman, Philip Tod, said it was too early to know what the next steps would be if the scientists reviewing the data concurred with Dr. Soffritti's findings.

And you thought the new Splenda based Diet Coke formula was just Coca Cola giving you variety...

Putting restrictions on aspartame would come at a significant cost. Food companies and consumers around the world bought about $570 million worth of it last year. New regulatory action on aspartame would also jeopardize the billions of dollars worth of products sold with it. Already, in the United States, many companies are opting to use sucralose, or Splenda, in their new low-calorie products, in part because it is less controversial.

Dr. Soffritti said he was inspired to look at aspartame because of what he calls "inadequacies" in the cancer studies done by Searle in the 1970's. He said that those studies did not involve large-enough numbers of rats and did not allow them to live long enough to develop cancer.

Oh man--great article--huge parts on the double dealings at the FDA--here's a brief snip...

Over the next few years, Searle's petition for aspartame approval led to much disagreement within the F.D.A. The commissioner at the time, Alexander M. Schmidt, convened a three-member public board of inquiry, which concluded that one of Searle's studies on rats showed an increase in brain tumors from aspartame. The board members — all of them scientists at universities — voted to withhold approval of aspartame until more studies were done.

But yet another F.D.A. review, this one of Searle's tumor tissue slides — paid for by Searle and conducted by an academic group that is now defunct — concluded that Searle's studies had demonstrated that aspartame was safe. In 1981, a new F.D.A. commissioner, Arthur Hull Hayes, concurred with this assessment and granted approval to aspartame shortly after President Ronald Reagan appointed him to run the agency.

And in a move that fueled the conspiracy theories, Mr. Hayes left the F.D.A. a little more than a year after approving aspartame and took a job as a consultant to Burson-Marsteller, which at the time was Searle's public relations agency. Mr. Hayes did not return calls seeking comment.

And for those that like to quote "numerous studies have shown it's safe"

She added that there were more than 100 published scientific studies showing no adverse effects from aspartame, and said that in 2002, the European Commission reviewed many of these studies and reaffirmed the sweetener's safety. The bulk of the studies investigated neurological effects; none were animal cancer studies, which are lengthy and expensive.

In any case, critics say that most of these studies were financed either directly or indirectly by manufacturers of aspartame, and that the results of aspartame studies tend to depend on who paid for them. In an analysis of 166 articles published in medical journals from 1980 to 1985, Dr. Ralph G. Walton, a professor of psychiatry at Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine found that all 74 studies that were financed by the industry attested to sweetener's safety.

Of the 92 independently funded articles, 84 identified adverse health effects. "Whenever you have studies that were not funded by the industry, some sort of problem is identified," said Dr. Walton, adding that he has not looked at studies performed since 1985. "It's far too much for it to be a coincidence."

Dr. Walton, who, like some other psychiatrists, has studied aspartame from a neurological perspective, said he had also seen problems from the sweetener firsthand. At Safe Harbor Behavioral Health, a mental health facility in Erie, Pa., where he is clinical director, Dr. Walton said he had observed that for many people with mood disorders, such as depression or bipolar disorder, aspartame exacerbates the condition. "For people with panic disorders, for instance, we've seen that when we eliminate aspartame, it's much easier to control their illness," he said. "The number of panic attacks goes down."

He said that an excess of phenyalanine could upset the body's balance of neurotransmitters, causing a range of neurological symptoms.

"If your blood phenyalanine level was increased five times, in my view there would be a safety concern," Dr. Pardridge said. "The question is whether aspartame use could ever increase levels that much, and the answer is yes. We've known that for 20 years."

And this next one sums it up for me as well...until they figure it out, I tell everyone I know to avoid the stuff...Why some defend it is beyond reason to me. The best you can say is "I dunno" and shrug your shoulders.

Dr. Soffritti said he thought that more research and open debate were needed on whether aspartame was a carcinogen. "It is very important to have scientists who are independent and not funded by industry looking at this"

Edited by kevink, 14 February 2006 - 03:52 AM.

wow maybe some of the people here will stop swearing that garbage is safe... good stuff man

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

Excellent information, for sure! So how long until it's off the shelves, do we think?

No, seriously, how long?

Excellent information, for sure! So how long until it's off the shelves, do we think?

No, seriously, how long?

never

money = fda in pocket

Yes I have been aware of the results for some time. I'd like too see how this holds out on reviews before making conclusions (ie. how problematic is the lack of letting outside pathologists review the samples). This won't be an issue for many other people here as they have made their conclusions long time ago. If there are no problems found in the setting, execution and the statistical pwer is considered high, I'd say it casts high enough doubt to take actions in terms of regulation and I'll admit that I was wrong. However, aspartame has gone through so much UNDULY crap (and I'll hold on to that one even if this rat cancer thing turns out to be real) that I want to wait for outside comments first.

As regards the conspiracy theories, goverment and corporation actions, the allegations seem extremely implausible to anyone who's ever actually been involved with corporations and regulatory bodies. For the least, it should be acknowledged that NO study is completely independent, even the 92 "independent" studies examined by Walton got their money from somewhere. If the results here DO come out true, I would more worried about the fact that the guidelines for ensuring safety, the two year rat study, is not long enough to see actual results and casts doubt on any substance that have been thought safe based at least partly on such measure. BTW, million bucks is not very much money with these kinds of issues.
Edited by opales, 14 February 2006 - 09:57 AM.

so - how come the all lived to the same age?

In an analysis of 166 articles published in medical journals from 1980 to 1985, Dr. Ralph G. Walton, a professor of psychiatry at Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine found that all 74 studies that were financed by the industry attested to sweetener's safety.

Of the 92 independently funded articles, 84 identified adverse health effects. "Whenever you have studies that were not funded by the industry, some sort of problem is identified,"

Opales, you touched on this very vaguely by stating that no study is completely independent. That's true.

Can you go a step further and offer the explanation for it that leads you to believe there is no foul play at work here? Because for me, and I'm sure most other people, it is far, far too suspicious.

BTW, million bucks is not very much money with these kinds of issues.

Yes, of course. But clearly the costs stop many studies from being done...for any number of substances.

As for the FDA and politcal payback -- I think its fairly recent nose dive track record of corrouption speaks for itself. Given the number of very public corruption/conflict of interest scandals the US Government has been having, and given the almost universal plea to reign in the out of control lobbyist machine...I'm not sure how the FDA could somehow be immune to what is clearly a rampant, cross party and far reaching poisoning of the checks and balances the founders of the US put into place.

If you disagree - we just see things differently. No worries. [thumb]

I hate the way it tastes anyway. I don't really drink soft drinks much, but has anyone ever gone to Mexico and drank a coke made with real cane sugar? That's what cokes used to taste like when I was a kid.

I always knew that crap was bad for you.

I told you so

I'll make you guys a deal. You drink four to five 20-ounce bottles of regular soda for 20 years, and I'll drink the same amount of diet soda with aspartame, and we'll compare health after 20 years.

---BrianW

Many of us have been condemning this stuff for years -- hopefully businesses that use this will stop now, otherwise face press and public backlash.

Next on the list: Splenda. This stuff is bad, too. But since it's relatively new, it'll take another 20 years for most people to answer the clue phone.

Also, aspartame's days are numbered partly because of Splenda's rise. The food industry needs a non-caloric sweetener, and aspartame can go bye-bye, still leaving the food industry with an alternative. So, it's no big loss. Therefore, Splenda will likely hang on until its replacement comes along. It's the way things work.

Brian, you don't get out much. There are studies out there showing that diet sodas actually result in more fat gain than non-diet sodas.

Plus, both contain the really evil ingredient, phosphoric acid. You've just got to be a total clueless moron to want to drink any soda. All you're doing is buying soda execs their yearly Mercedes, at the expense of your health. But, I'm sure they love you for it!

I'll make you guys a deal.  You drink four to five 20-ounce bottles of regular soda for 20 years, and I'll drink the same amount of diet soda with aspartame, and we'll compare health after 20 years.

---BrianW

how about you drink either of them... and i wont drink any soda at all. we'll compare health after 20 years.


no soda at all?

novel idea...

dukenukem

Plus, both contain the really evil ingredient, phosphoric acid.

Are you refering to the data suggesting bone brittling in 9 and 10 year old children associated with cola consumption? Is your concern over the calcium loss? Are there other health concerns? I do not use softdrinks as they are simply of no use to my body but I have family that do. My sister for instance experiences kidney stones as a result. I would like to send her some specific data if you have some good resources to share on the subject.

I'll make you guys a deal.  You drink four to five 20-ounce bottles of regular soda for 20 years, and I'll drink the same amount of diet soda with aspartame, and we'll compare health after 20 years.

---BrianW

I HOPE that was a joke? Obviously there's no correlation between the two events.

I'll make you guys a deal.  You drink four to five 20-ounce bottles of regular soda for 20 years, and I'll drink the same amount of diet soda with aspartame, and we'll compare health after 20 years.

I think it is a good point. I am sure the study could be done in rats more quickly than 20 years. And I am quite sure the rats loading up on extreme amounts of sugar will be in very poor health and probably suffering a lot more ill-effects than cancer.

That being said, I also avoid it. I try to drink unsweetened drinks like tea or use real sugar. Still, I don't freak out on the rare occassion I am drinking or eating a product with aspartame.

I'll make you guys a deal.  You drink four to five 20-ounce bottles of regular soda for 20 years, and I'll drink the same amount of diet soda with aspartame, and we'll compare health after 20 years.

---BrianW

I HOPE that was a joke? Obviously there's no correlation between the two events.

Indeed. Soft drinks are pretty disgusting and should be a no-brainer that it's bad for you, in any form. I have them maybe a couple of times a year.

Brian, you don't get out much.  There are studies out there showing that diet sodas actually result in more fat gain than non-diet sodas.

There are also studies showing that people who have 1-2 drinks per day weigh less than those that have none or are binge drinkers. That is a very poor example to use to condemn diet sodas.

I do agree with you on your other points regarding diet soda, though.

kevink wrote re my soda challenge:

I HOPE that was a joke? Obviously there's no correlation between the two events.

It was the libertarian in me getting upset because someone mentioned banning aspartame because of possible risk at huge doses. If that's the criterion we are going to use to determine food safety, there are a helluva lot more things that should be banned ahead of aspartame.

I enjoy artificial sweeteners in moderation. They allow me to enjoy otherwise unpalatable health foods, and even occasional sodas, without spiking insulin. Government should not be a substitute for individual judgement and responsibility.

---BrianW

Brian's point is an important one. Given the options of drinking 4-5 regular sodas, 4-5 diet sodas, or NO sodas, clearly the right answer is no sodas. But that's missing the point.

Aspartame isn't for everyone. If you don't want soda, great, good for you. But you shouldn't have the right to prevent anyone else from having it. If someone else wants soda, as is going to drink it one way or the other, then they should have the choice between regular and diet sodas. Given a long-term comparison of regular versus diet soda (heavy drinkers, > 2 liters per day), my money is on the diet soda group living longer with fewer health problems early in life. (Forget the control group that doesn't drink soda, that's not the issue here, unless you intend to ban sodas altogether. While you're at it, why don't you ban red meat, non-organic produce, and refined flour products [breads, pastas]. Face it, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink, as the old adage goes.)

It's a no-brainer: 4 20-oz. sodas is about 1,000 calories, all from high GI carbs. Sure, the phosphoric and carbonic acid aren't going to help either, but those are present in both groups. The real independent variable here is sugar versus aspartame, and aspartame will win, hands down.

If sugar-laden regular sodas lead to a million new cases of type 2 diabetes and a 50,000 premature deaths a year, and aspartame causes fatal cancers in 10,000 people a year, then banning aspartame is completely stupid unless you're going to ban sugar (good luck with that). But I bet the premature death ratios are far worse than 5:1 for sugar versus aspartame, probably more on the order of 50:1. Just look at how bad the current obesity crisis is. And you want to pump MORE sugar into Americans' veins by banning aspartame?

Forget the fact that there's an alternative. That's not the issue. Splenda is unproven and probably just as dangerous (or just as not dangerous: after all, this is just one study).

If you want people to stop using aspartame, you should do it the RIGHT way: education. Ultimately, educated people are responsible for their own choices. That's the way it should be. Let the market decide.

If you want people to stop using aspartame, you should do it the RIGHT way: education. Ultimately, educated people are responsible for their own choices. That's the way it should be. Let the market decide.

This is a good point. If we want the freedom to decide what supplements and drugs to put into our bodies to improve our health, by the same token we have to allow people the freedom to destroy their health by deliberately ingesting toxic substances. You can't argue for one without the other.

Education + Freedom > Government Regulation

Many of us have been condemning this stuff for years -- hopefully businesses that use this will stop now, otherwise face press and public backlash.

Next on the list:  Splenda.  This stuff is bad, too.  But since it's relatively new, it'll take another 20 years for most people to answer the clue phone.

Also, aspartame's days are numbered partly because of Splenda's rise.  The food industry needs a non-caloric sweetener, and aspartame can go bye-bye, still leaving the food industry with an alternative.  So, it's no big loss.  Therefore, Splenda will likely hang on until its replacement comes along.  It's the way things work.

Brian, you don't get out much.  There are studies out there showing that diet sodas actually result in more fat gain than non-diet sodas.

Plus, both contain the really evil ingredient, phosphoric acid.  You've just got to be a total clueless moron to want to drink any soda.  All you're doing is buying soda execs their yearly Mercedes, at the expense of your health.  But, I'm sure they love you for it!

I think you are too critical on sucralose.

First of all, that study has been conducted in Italy, where sucralose is NOT yet available (I live here and I know). Almost every diet thing has aspartame inside. I really hope it has a big impact on the mass market but i doubt that.

Chemistry on hand, sucralose doesnt look as harmful as aspartame, by a big lenght. Time will tell. I dont see better alternatives at the moment.

Lastly, the "studies" that says that diet soda makes one fat like regular one are based on the psychological influence of eating sweet things and are to be taken with a grum of salt.
Better to avoid soda at all

If we want the freedom to decide what supplements and drugs to put into our bodies to improve our health, by the same token we have to allow people the freedom to destroy their health by deliberately ingesting toxic substances.

I agree.

I don’t care if they ban the stuff or not. If it is proven to cause health issues, I do care that they call a spade a spade and stop waving the "health" flag…

How many people still smoke? Surely all the money poured into educating the masses that smoking will kill you and those around you means that nobody smokes anymore? OK, people still smoke, but surely there are no NEW smokers right? Kids smoking? Darn, that’s not the case either.

Sure people can suck down or smoke away anything they choose – yeah, freedom of choice. Cool. If anyone wants to say “Substance X” is not that bad and they don’t care...and said substance does not impact me in any way...great, go for it. But do not market it to unknowing people and children as completely safe and without long term health risks.

Tell the damn truth, stop covering things up, and let the people decide for themselves. Maybe other people like to get half the story, but I'd like the entire one so I can make an informed decision.

Edit: Uggh, now I'm ticked off at smokers and McDonalds fanatics. I think I went over on the A-GPC/CDP this afternoon.
Edited by kevink, 14 February 2006 - 10:47 PM.

Jay, people have gotten seriously ill and diseased after very little usage of aspartame. As soon as I started drinking it in the late 80's, I began getting very dire headaches, and they went away when I made the connection and stopped drinking that stuff. I've recommended this DVD many times: Sweet Misery. It sort of ends all discussion on this matter. Much like the book Fast Food Nation did for the fast food industry -- which, btw, is being made into a movie.

BTW, let companies keep using aspartame, just use a cigarette-like warning label, and prevent its sale to minors who don't know any better. I have no problem with adults putting themselves in an early grave -- less people in my way on the roads!

I dont see better alternatives at the moment.

Stevia, or very little real sugar -- half a pack rather than six ofr an iced tea drink. Try not to turn your drinks into syrup! Also, saccharine had a bad rap, but appears to be by far the safest of the three primary artificial sweeteners. It's been around for 100, years, and has NO medical reported problems I've heard about. The other two have 1000's of reported problems.

Lastly, the "studies" that says that diet soda makes one fat like regular one are based on the psychological influence of eating sweet things and are to be taken with a grum of salt.

There's that, but the sweetness actually produces a physiologically response, too. And it's that aspect that leads to the problems, though I'd need to due the research again to remember why this is the case. This came out last year, based on a study I read about.

dukenukem, I think your advice to just use a half a pack or very little real sugar is the best advice. It's easy to get use to less sugar. That's exactly what I do.

dukenukem said:

BTW, let companies keep using aspartame, just use a cigarette-like warning label, and prevent its sale to minors who don't know any better. I have no problem with adults putting themselves in an early grave -- less people in my way on the roads!

Actually, I rather agree with this.

There's that, but the sweetness actually produces a physiologically response, too. And it's that aspect that leads to the problems, though I'd need to due the research again to remember why this is the case. This came out last year, based on a study I read about.

Yes, there was a study. I believe it was posted at FuturePundit, so I should be able to dig it up later for everyone's benefit.

Basically, with real sugar, the body learns to associate sweetness with calories. This isn't just psychological, but physiological. When someone eats sweets, the amount of sweetness tasted gets entered into the body's complex equations for determining when one will feel content and will stop eating naturally.

Artificial sweeteners throw these equations off. It isn't so much a problem if EVERYTHING you eat is sweet. But the problem is if you drink diet sodas and then eat some sweet food, maybe cakes or candy or even just fruit. The body doesn't properly register the calories in the sweet foods, so you overeat them.

Now like I said, this wouldn't be a problem if EVERYTHING sweet you ate was artificially sweetened, but that just isn't the case 99% of the time.

This is probably a bigger problem for children, because they haven't learned in an academic sense how to eat, so they rely much more on what feels right, when they're hungry, when they're sated, etc. So I'd rather that children didn't use artificial sweeteners, period. Of course, this is just my opinion. Some people think kids shouldn't play video games, or learn about safe sex.

However, if aspartame is dangerous, then it SHOULD be restricted from minors, because they're not informed, consenting adults (who should be allowed to choose to do something dangerous, like smoke).

So I think Duke hit the nail on the head with this comment.

so - how come the all lived to the same age?

uhm, uhm.

xylitol is probably the best choice for a sugar alternative, too bad it causes flatulance in just about everybody I know.

Excellent article, I have had people swearing that sweeteners are Aok for you, how come we always get garbage on our food ??

How much xylitol does it take to cause flatulence?