Federal Study Rejects Aspartame Risks

Originally posted by bsl4doc
A nitrosamine isn't a bacteria, virus, or disease of any sort, it's a naturally occuring compound that can produce free radicals.

~MFP

I know.

Originally posted by marg6043

Originally posted by bsl4doc
A nitrosamine isn't a bacteria, virus, or disease of any sort, it's a naturally occuring compound that can produce free radicals.

~MFP

I know.

mmmmmmmmm is that the stuff that makes bacon taste so good.

AT anyrate, it kind of proves the old adage that everything needs to be in moderation and I think that the true message behind what the study tells us.

You can spin it anyway you want, but the data for this group shows no signifigant increase in cancer

Whitewash is common whenever large scale financial interests are at stake, early studies indicated something else entirely, let me start with formaldehyde, a metabloite of aspartame, and what it does

Source
Inhalation of vapors produces irritation to the eyes, nose, and throat and
frequently results in upper respiratory tract irritation, coughing, and
bronchitis. Asthma may occur in sensitive individuals. Severe exposure to fumes
may lead to chemical pneumonia. Skin reactions after exposure to formaldehyde
are very common because the chemical can be both irritating and allergy-causing.
In addition, formaldehyde is involved in DNA damage and inhibits its repair.
Formaldehyde is a suspected human carcinogen and has been shown to produce
mutations and abnormal organisms in bacterial studies. Formaldehyde fumes are
liberated from plywood, particleboard, and chipboard, as well as urea
formaldehyde foam insulation. Symptoms associated with exposure to formaldehyde
fumes include mucous membrane irritation, upper respiratory tract irritation,
eye irritation, skin rashes, itching, nausea, stuffy nose, headaches, dizziness,
and general fatigue.

..when inhaled...

It doesn't take a legion of FDA officials to understand that inhaling fumes is not comparable to ingesttion, the differences in consumed substance by weight alone should be enough to make that clear.

furthermore, early testing looked a bit different

Source..
Autumn 1967

GD Searle approaches eminent biochemist Dr Harry Waisman, director of the University of Wisconsin's Joseph P Kennedy Jr Memorial Laboratory of Mental Retardation Research and a respected expert in the toxicity of phenylalanine (which comprises 50 percent of the aspartame formula), to conduct a study of the effects of aspartame on primates. Of seven monkeys fed aspartame mixed with milk, one dies and five others have grand mal epileptic seizures.


Spring 1971

Dr John Olney, professor of neuropathology and psychiatry at Washington University in St Louis School of Medicine, whose research into the neurotoxic food additive monosodium glutamate (MSG, a chemical cousin of aspartame) was responsible for having it removed from baby foods, informs Searle that his studies show that aspartic acid, one of the main constituents of aspartame, causes holes in the brains of infant mice. One of Searle's researchers, Ann Reynolds, confirms Olney's findings in a similar study.


February 1973

Searle applies for FDA approval and submits over 100 studies it claims support aspartame's safety. Neither the dead monkeys nor the mice with holes in their brains are included in the submission.

.....

The Bressler Report is released. It focuses on three key aspartame studies conducted by Searle. The report finds that in one study 98 of the 196 animals died but weren't autopsied until later dates, making it impossible to ascertain the actual cause of death.

Tumors were removed from live animals and the animals placed back in the study. Many other errors and inconsistencies are noted. For example, a rat was reported alive, then dead, then alive, then dead again. Bressler comments: 'The question you have got to ask yourself is: why wasn't greater care taken? 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.'

The FDA creates yet another task force to review the Bressler Report. The review is carried out by a team at the FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition and headed by senior scientist Jacqueline Verrett.


September 28, 1977

The FDA publishes a report exonerating Searle of any wrongdoing in its testing procedures. Jacqueline Verrett will later testify to the U.S. Senate that her team was pressured into validating data from experiments that were clearly a 'disaster'.

The reason? the FDA loves to ban amino acids and many corporations are lobbying to ban vitamins (high dose, my ***) but toxicity is not the reason

Source #2


Sometimes, the manufacturer points to the fact that aspartame has been approved in many countries. But none of these countries even tested aspartame. They relied on the manufacturer's pre-approved "research" which was aptly described by an FDA Investigator:


"They [manufacturer] lied and they didn't submit the real nature of their observations because had they done that it is more than likely that a great number of these studies would have been rejected simply for adequacy. What [the manufacturer] did, they took great pains to camouflage these shortcomings of the study. As I say filter and just present to the FDA what they wished the FDA to know and they did other terrible things for instance animals would develop tumors while they were under study. Well they would remove these tumors from the animals."
[US Congressional Record, Volume 131, No. 106, August 1, 1985, pages S10826-S10827]

It gets better, though, the effect is cumulative!

Source #3
..

"It was a very interesting paper, that demonstrates that formaldehyde formation from aspartame ingestion is very common and does indeed accumulate within the cell, reacting with cellular proteins (mostly enzymes) and DNA (both mitochondrial and nuclear). The fact that it accumulates with each dose, indicates grave consequences among those who consume diet drinks and foodstuffs on a daily basis." (Blaylock 1998)

the FDA's job is to protect 'the biz' and screw you all over, simple as that, just look

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

if that ain't enough to prove my point, i don't know what is.

I love it when people say things like “soap isn’t natural” and “sodium laureth sulfate is soap it isn’t in anything. Soap (SLS) is made from heating fat and lye(water and ashes) that’s about 2 of the most natural things I have ever heard of.

Back to the topic the whole problem is the siding of information while it can be harmless and also a deadly toxin you need to know the facts and not the crap of the one sided sources. Take phenylalanine some people can not proses it making it a deadly poison…but this is rare and you have to be born with it.

This whole natural things is so funny ya lets eat leaves and cyanide b/c that’s natural. Just b/c its “natural” doesn’t mean its better for you than something made in a lab. And aspartame is infact natural it can be found in your stomach in reaction to cretin amino acids in its high PH environment. So infact it can be found naturally.

Ok to find the truth we must look at how it behaves. Aspartame is very stable in acidic environments (5.0 PH) lower then your stomach or a pop(soda) so it chemically is very stable in your body. Ok this is the part that gets blown out of proportion when above 90 degrees F some of it brakes down to wood alcohol and formaldehyde…but very very tiny amounts. If you drink a beer it has over 10 times the amount of wood alcohol that is released by the breakdown of aspartame. And the formaldehyde this amount is so small that the amount that your body produces( yes that’s right but not much) is vastly more.

So the real fact is it is both but it is only as toxic as has been posted here in very large amounts. I believe it is the same as radiation while radiation can fry you like a TV dinner it is invaluable in the medical field and when used properly it can be used to treat cancer.

All things in moderation

Ah, it's a Federal study so it must be true?

We've been dumping crap in our bodies for a while now, and yes some of these things do affect you.

Take the time to strip these things from your diet for a while. Give your body some time to cleanse, and adjust to good foods. Then try eating the junk packed foods again, you may be suprised to find that there is something not right about it.

Besides, let's put our thinking caps on. Company's that make soda and such are junk food dealers. We need not really look any deeper than that. I like a good soda now and then, but I won't let myself get addicted to some diet product that could hurt me in the long run for the sake of counting calories.

Concentrate on eating healthy, and use "sweats and treats" in moderation and I think you will be just fine. These sugar free treats and such are just excuses to pile your body full of more crap. Perhaps stevia is a good alternative to sugar.

Troy

Originally posted by marg6043
The sentinal I will advise you that you should cut your soda intake and substitute with water, at the end it will benefit you health wise.

[edit on 6-4-2006 by marg6043]

i would do that marg6043 but water doesnt keep me awake but seriuosly what's the real harm besides serious kidney problems....and a few dead monkey's

[edit on 24-4-2006 by the_sentinal]

Originally posted by cybertroy


We've been dumping crap in our bodies for a while now, and yes some of these things do affect you.

Exactly what crap are we dumping in to our bodies that we can not consume naturally? And just because its natural doesn’t mean its good go take a drink of snide laced water, go hold a chunk of radioactive rock, or drink some wood alcohol. I could continue with this for days you suggest the we dump crap in to our bodies but the problem is it is natural and people are misled by one sided facts. Many Americans are addicted to caffeine a drug found in the cola nut and coffee bean. Cocaine is extracted from natural sources. Your argument is misled things synthetic or natural should be used in moderation and the real problem is psychological in nature and not biochemical. People who drink to much pop(soda) are the ones who should be responsible for there own life choices. As I recall a lawsuit near by me who clamed that the alcohol he ingested eventually led to him wrecking his truck. Now alcohol can be a killer or it can get you laid and reduce stress. Thousands of Americans die each year b/c of intoxication. But who is to blame the beverage and outlaw it b/c it kills or the people who didn’t know where to stop and where being stupid?

Sure, there are natural toxins, but that shouldn't be confused with a natural diet. Obviously we don't drink a glass of Amonia with our meals.

But the extra junk in food does affect the body, it isn't just psychological. Drink a cup of Petrol and there is a good chance that something physical and bad will happen to you. Ok, in fairness, lets say that drinking a drop of Petrol relieves a headache? Do we now slowly poison ourselves with Petrol for the sake of handling a headache, when there probably was a safe alternative? Some stuff just doesn't belong in our bodies, bottom line. And some toxins can be stored in the body and cause future problems, but thankfully it can be flushed out. I believe in "mind over matter," and we may be able to overcome toxins by "willing" it so, but why make life harder? Just how does Aspartame benefit us anyway? Does its' benefits outweigh its' potential harms? Is it really a benefit to dieters?

Honestly nowadays, Stevia has become known, so why mess with Aspartame anyway? Maybe Aspartame is cheaper and more profitable? I'd say if you like sweets, real unrefined sugar or Stevia may be the way to go.

Troy

Then, there's Xylitol, another useful substitute

[edit on 26-4-2006 by Long Lance]