[From the abstract:]
Despite some rather unscientific assumptions, there is no evidence that aspartame is carcinogenic. [...] For new generation sweeteners, it is too early to establish any epidemiological evidence about possible carcinogenic risks. As many artificial sweeteners are combined in today’s products, the carcinogenic risk of a single substance is difficult to assess. However, according to the current literature, the possible risk of artificial sweeteners to induce cancer seems to be negligible.
[... Main text, page 4:]
Fifteen years after the approval of aspartame, the Journal of Neuropathology and Experimental Neurology published an article by Olney et al. [31] with the title ‘Increasing brain tumor rates: Is there a link to aspartame?’, which received tremendous attention from the mass media, as well as the scientific community. The authors hypothesized that the increasing rate of brain tumors in humans since 1980 could possibly be explained by the introduction of aspartame. They supported their hypothesis with an FDA trial in 320 Sprague – Dawley rats. Twelve ratsdeveloped malignant brain tumors after receiving an aspartame-containing feed for 2 years [32]. They argued that another trial had shown that the aspartame molecule acquires mutagenic activity when nitrosated [33]. The publication of Olney et al. [31] led to heavy criticism of the scientific community, whereas the laymen press suggested abstaining from aspartame-sweetened products [34]. In an editorial, Ross [35] demonstrated the weaknesses of the Olney study. He explained that Olney et al. [31] linked two events that incidentally occurred during roughly the same time period: the increase of brain tumors and the introduction of aspartame. This correlation is not admissible in epidemiology, and is called ‘ecological fallacy’. There was no information available regarding whether the individuals who developed brain tumors consumed aspartame. As Ross states, one might also invoke home computers, VCR usage or the depletion of the ozone layer to argue trends in brain tumors. In addition, the introduction of aspartame and the rising brain tumor rate occurred almost simultaneously. For the development of brain tumors, a certain latency would have been required. The study that showed an increased brain tumor incidence in aspartame-fed rats, which gave rise to the argument of Olney et al., could not be confirmed by later trials [36].
Though there are still plenty of studies that indicate it does a lot of bad things. I was reading something not long ago about aspartame being linked to causing seizures, and it was a pretty convincing study. Can't remember where I read it, though.The study I linked to was a systematic review of fifteen years' or so worth of evidence. There are no reputable studies that suggest that aspartame presents more than an almost negligible risk, if any risk at all.
Who knows whether it causes cancer or not.It doesn't cause cancer at a statistically detectable rate, as the authors of the study quite convincingly lay out. If it presents any risk at all, it must have been too small for many powerful studies to find it.
I already posted about this. (http://www.overwritten.net/forum/index.php?topic=740.msg8573#msg8573) It's not carcinogenic. It contains the amino acid phenylalanine, which can be harmful if you have phenylketonuria, which is the body's inability to convert phenylalanine to taurine I believe.Tyrosine. Taurine is the stuff they put in those energy drinks that taste like battery acid smells.
Another study employing a controlled environment, which was also a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled cross-over trial, concluded that aspartame was no more likely than placebo to trigger headaches (Schiffman et al., 1987). This study consisted of 40 subjects who complained of aspartame-related headaches. Subjects received aspartame challenges on days three or five at a total dose of 30 mg/kg bw (for a 70 kg person); subjects received placebo on the other days. While 35% of subjects developed headaches while on aspartame, 45% developed headaches while on placebo. In addition, no treatment related effects were detected in blood pressure, or plasma concentrations of cortisol, insulin, glucagon, histamine, epinephrine or norepinephrine. The subjects who had headaches had lower plasma concentrations of norepinephrine and epinephrine just before the development of headache. This study has been criticised for using tightly controlled experimental conditions which did not mimic normal life (Edmeads, 1988), but Schiffman et al. (1987) argued that the nature of the study and the primary focus of the questions raised by CDC dictated that they use carefully controlled conditions at a hospital setting.Start of page 11. The section on epilepsy is immediately below that.
I suppose I'd give more credence to studies if they weren't so often overturned by later evidence.That happens to perhaps one study in a thousand. The great thing about empirical science is, even if your theory is complete and utter bollocks, so long as you get the method right your data will always be good.
"Oh, whoops. All our data was 100% correct, we just didn't realize that this one tiny thing set off a chain reaction somewhere else that actually makes you blow your intestines out your ass." Human error happens all the time. People miss things.There's nothing to miss with a controlled experiment. They treat the human body as a black box, and instead compare two groups of people who are virtually identical except for the experiment variable. Furthermore, they specifically monitor everything from depression and insomnia to digestive complaints and the incidence of colds. Presumably a post-rectal intestinal inversion would be a very serious digestive complaint, and if it occurred in more than a tiny fraction of the population the study would almost certainly have picked it up. Large-scale meta-reviews (like the ones in the studies I posted) are reliably sensitive to symptoms as rare as several cases per million people. They also reference longitudinal studies that have been ongoing for 15-20 years, so any symptoms that are "hiding" must have either an incredibly low incidence or an incredibly long onset time.
Beware of splenda too.
There's nothing to miss with a controlled experiment. They treat the human body as a black box, and instead compare two groups of people who are virtually identical except for the experiment variable. Furthermore, they specifically monitor everything from depression and insomnia to digestive complaints and the incidence of colds. Presumably a post-rectal intestinal inversion would be a very serious digestive complaint, and if it occurred in more than a tiny fraction of the population the study would almost certainly have picked it up. Large-scale meta-reviews (like the ones in the studies I posted) are reliably sensitive to symptoms as rare as several cases per million people. They also reference longitudinal studies that have been ongoing for 15-20 years, so any symptoms that are "hiding" must have either an incredibly low incidence or an incredibly long onset time.
Part of good science is realizing the limitations of the scientific method and being careful not to make wild sweeping generalizations that are obviously outside the scope of studies like this. I guaranee you'd never see any of the scientists who participated in this study making black and white statements like that.I didn't make sweeping statements. I made extremely precise statements about what the rate of incidence of aspartame-induced cancer must be in order to be undetectable to such a large number of controlled studies. Given that the sample populations they looked out included tens of millions of aspartame users and non-users, I feel confident saying that aspartame must cause cancer in only a few cases per million, or less.
The big scare started when it was found that one of the artificial sweeteners (saccharin (sweet n low) I think) was found to be carcinogenic in rats. It ended up having to do with the way rats store urine, which differs from humans. I forget exact details [...]Saccharin is the first sweetener they discuss in the results section of the first study I posted.
There's nothing to miss with a controlled experiment.
The AFSSA (2002) report noted thatI already discussed this in Reply #7.Among the possible adverse effects of aspartame, researchers have paid particular attention to seizures. Several studies have suggested a relationship between the consumption of large amounts of aspartame and the triggering of epileptic seizures. In an old study (1972), on new-born monkeys (2-3 animals per group) treated with doses of aspartame of 1, 3 and 4g/kg bw/day for 52 weeks, epileptic seizures were recorded at the highest doses, after 218 days of treatment. Thereafter, sporadic convulsions were observed during handling of the animals. These symptoms were identical with those observed in young monkeys treated with phenylalanine.
In contrast, in a similar study also conducted on young monkeys, no effect was observed at doses of aspartame of 2 and 2.7 g/kg bw/day. The different results observed in the two studies could be explained by differences in the exposure conditions, the food and the state of health of the animals (JECFA, 1980).
I dated a woman with epilepsy, so yes, I'm aware of what it is.Same here. She hadn't had a seizure or any epileptic reactions in years though. Man, I miss her a lot.