Question:
We have all heard about the "evils" of Aspartame from trolls, Betty Martini and company, etc. I ran into this post on another group I read frequently. The post was made by a trusted, regular poster, and I have chosen to remove her name and the name of said group so that she and they won't be bombarded with troll posts. I just thought it was a very interesting take on the common myths surrounding aspartame, and thought some of you might be interested. As far as I know, this poster is not a diabetic, and has no particular stake in the discussion, except an attempt to get to the facts of the matter. This has been reposted with her permission, and she has added her qualifications as well. YMMV, take it for what it's worth. Bev
Caveat: Many of the statements that follow are my own
opinion, and are not to be interpreted as a statement of fact. I will try to remember to clearly identify those statements that are my opinion, and not a generally recognized scientific fact. I have not done any personal scientific research on the subject, just a review of the appropriate literature. For the record, I am currently unemployed and thus not on the payroll of any chemical company (though I would like to be, I don't take bribes). I am not a doctor, nutrtionist, or even a biochemist, but I am a chemist. I have both a BS and a Masters degree in chemistry, and am a member of both the Green Chemistry and Food Chemistry divisions of the American Chemical Society. For those who weren't at the Northside meeting, one of the gentlemen (who I happen to like, nothing against him is to be implied, no names, I'm sure he honestly believes what he read and that some of his problems were caused by it, and I sure don't expect non-scientists to be able to understand the whole picture) gave some information about the health effects of aspartame that he had found on the web. The information was all frightening in nature. I've heard various people in the past say that they'd heard all sorts of horrible things about it, but this was the first time that I heard any of the details of the anti-aspartame claims. However, as a trained chemist, many of the statements set off warning bells in my mind as to their veracity. The first warning bell went off when he read part of a list of "92 symptoms of aspartame poisoning". As a general statement, very few substances have that many, wildly varied "symptoms". To quote an article from Time magazine on the aspartame scare, "Just as no single chemical cures everything, none causes everything." The second warning bell went off with the statement that when aspartame is in water at temperatures above freezing, it breaks down into such well-known toxins as formaldehyde and methanol. That did not jive with what I know of its chemical structure and properties. For one thing, aspartame is two bonded amino acids, and breaks back down into those amino acids, and methanol. Yes, methanol is poisonous if you try to drink it in appreciable quantities. But small amounts are contained in many natural products, including fruit/fruit juice. For instance, (Quoting from the Lancet) "a 330 ml can of aspartame-sweetened soft drink will yield about 20 mg methanol, an equivalent volume of fruit juice produces 40 mg methanol, and an alcoholic beverage about 60-100 mg." More on the amino acids later. Aspartame is quite stable at room temperature. When heated to high temperatures, it will decompose (the decomposition products are the same as when ingested), but the only real problem is that the sweetness is reduced. (It's a sweetener, if there's less of it, the item will be less sweet.) But, even though I had serious doubts about the sources, I decided to reserve judgement until I could check those sources myself. I like to read a lot of chemical publications, and had never heard anything about it as a toxin. I've read about other interesting uses of it, and I've read about the biological/environmental dangers of many other common substances. (Check into environmental estrogens and bisphenol-A if you want to be freaked.) The gentleman said that many of the studies proving the danger were done by major universities and governmental health bodies, and gave several websites where more information could be found. When I returned home, I did a quick google search on aspartame. Just glancing at the first page of search results, the warning bells started going off louder than a fire alarm. Firstly, none of the domain names belonged to anything that I would consider to be a reputable source, none of them were universities, governmental bodies from ANY country, or even independent labs. Also, the brief blurb that google gave for all of the sites - they were all statements that I thought were obviously designed to be sensational scare tactics (one even compared aspartame to Hitler!) None of them used any terms that were vaguely scientific, and instead relied heavily on capitalized scary words. I went to some of the highest ranked sites, including one that the gentleman had mentioned was helpful, and my already low confidence level took a nosedive. They were all (in my opinion) disorganized, irrational, and unscientific - even assuming that all the statements were true, the logic behind their conclusions just did not follow. For one thing, everything was anecdotal, and anecdotes don't prove squat, even when there are many well-documented ones. These anecdotes were all anonymous, with no documentation whatsoever, all were FOAF (Friend of a Friend) tales. I dug through for links to the studies they touted by reputable sources, and to my chagrin, they did not lead off-site (to the original journal or university study or anything of the sort, any impartial organization), and did not actually include the peer-reviewed journal articles to which they alluded, but instead summarized them in their own terms. This was a major red flag - if the authors were indeed trying to be scrupulous, they should have given a link to the full text, or at the bare minimum the abstract (a quick summary of a scientific paper - for journals where there is a charge for the actual article, the abstracts are always freely available.) would be made available. When someone is trying to prove something that doesn't have research support behind it, a common tactic is to pick and choose snippets from reputable sources, completely ignoring (and hiding from their own readers) the surrounding context, and of course everything contradictory. "Real" scientific journal articles almost always include the researcher's assessment of possible problems with the experiment, possible flaws in tthe theory or conclusion, and other possible explanations for the phenomena in question. This would be very simple to take out of context, as would a study that indicated that it was initiated by reports that turned out to be unfounded. I FINALLY managed to find some sites from what I consider to be reputable sources of chemical information - hell, my standard in this case was just sites that had any information at all on other chemistry, as opposed to just anti-aspartame. Then I found what my favorite urban-legend-busting sites had to say on the subject. Needless to say, they debunked the whole myth for the reasons I had been suspicious, as well as some further details. I'll put those links at the bottom. Now what about those amino acid decomposition products? As scary as that phrase may sound, trust me, it's not. Amino acids are often called "the building blocks of life". They are the building blocks that combine to form proteins. The amino acids in question, both natural ones we use in our bodies, are aspartic acid (hence the name - it's a non-essential amino acid, which means that our bodies can make it from other nutrients) and phenylalanine. Many of you have probably noticed the warning on packages containing aspartame products along the lines of "Warning phenylketonurics: contains phenylalanine" which definitely sounds scary, to be sure. Well, phenylalanine is actually an essential amino acid, which means we NEED to ingest a certain amount of it in our foods. Phenylketonuria is a (relatively rare, fortunately) genetic disorder where the afflicted person does not have enough of the enzyme required to use phenylalanine properly, so they have to avoid foods that contain high amounts of it, whether they are natural or artificial foods. From the Lancet, "The yield of phenylalanine is about 100 mg for a can of diet soft drink, compared with 300 mg for an egg, 500 mg for a glass of milk, and 900 mg for a large hamburger." Anything with protein will be broken down into the amino acids when digested, and most all protein sources yield much more phenylalanine than a diet soda. Now, let me clearly state that there are some people who are exceptionally sensitive to just about every single substance known to mankind. And if you ingest enough of ANYTHING, even water, it can and will cause problems of some sort. In my personal opinion, the main danger of aspartame to the average person is that foods and beverages that contain it generally tend to be ones that aren't exactly healthy in the first place. Animal studies have led to the conclusion that (in the general populace) the toxicity level is over 2000mg/kg body weight, and the FDA has suggested (to be on the safe side) a maximum dose of 50mg/kg a day. A standard 12 ounce can of diet soda has approximately 180 mg - a few simple calculations show that a 150 lb person would have to drink almost 19 diet sodas to reach the FDA's recommended limit. Now, I love my Diet Dr. Pepper, refer to it as my addiction, but I don't drink nearly THAT many, and I sure don't weigh 150 lbs. The small amount of methanol is easily handled by our bodies - yes, it is first converted to formaldehyde then formate, but the amount is so tiny that it doesn't present a problem. Remember, a can of diet soda yields about half as much methanol as a can of fruit juice. Have you ever heard of millions of people getting methanol poisoning due to fruit juice? If methanol were toxic to us at the level in soda, we would have stopped eating fruit and drinking beer and wine thousands of years ago. So, in my personal opinion, based on what I have read about aspartame and my general chemical knowledge, unless you have a sensitivity issue, consuming aspartame products in moderate amounts will probably not cause many problems other than those due to the less-than-nutritious products in which they are found. There is a new, chemically similar sweetener that was approved this July, neotame I believe it's called, but that's all I know about it at the moment, and I haven't seen it in any products. Oh, and as far as Splenda goes, I haven't read anything negative about it, but... It's a chlorinated version of sucrose, 600 times sweeter than sugar. Halogenated substances in general (those that have had fluorine, chlorine, etc.) have serious toxicity and environmental issues - you may have heard of a little something known as the destruction ozone layer due to CFCs (chlorinated fluoro-carbons, chemicals containing chlorine, fluorine and carbon atoms). Not all substances with them are bad, we do need a certain amount of salt, sodium chloride, but that did raise my eyebrows when I first saw the chemical structure. At the low levels at which it's used, it may very well be perfectly harmless. Those urban-legend sites, which go into some of the details of the hoax email chain letter claims and have more specific rebuttals of the claims (no heavy chemistry involved), and links to rebuttals by reputable sources are: http://www.snopes.com/toxins/aspartame.asp http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blasp.htm As I said, these are my opinions and conclusions only. Aspartame isn't exactly good for you, but for most generally healthy adults, in moderate amounts, it isn't exactly bad for you, either, other than the fact that it is mostly found in junk food. If you do notice unusual problems after consuming aspartame products, by all means, stop consuming them.< Remove the "SpamFree" for email, please. Join us in the Diabetic-Talk Chatroom on UnderNet /server irc.undernet.org --- /join #Diabetic-Talk More info: http://www.diabetic-talk.org/
Answers:
One of the best and most objective posts I have seen in years of reading this newsgroup. I use a lot of aspertame. In coffee, in other drinks, in cooking. I also have a good friend who is violently allergic to it. There ARE a few of them. (Remember the people who are allergic to peanuts?) Bev's post covers me, my friend and the whole population - sanely. Nan, Type 2
Answers:
Great post. It'd be great if you could save it and post it as needed...if you get my drift. c "Bev" <sambalover~aol.comSpamFree wrote in message news:20031214174423.19889.00000209~mb-m01.aol.com...
We have all heard about the "evils" of Aspartame from
trolls, Betty Martini and
company, etc. I ran into this post on another group I read
frequently. The
post was made by a trusted, regular poster, and I have
chosen to remove her
name and the name of said group so that she and they won't
be bombarded with
troll posts. I just thought it was a very interesting take
on the common myths
surrounding aspartame, and thought some of you might be
interested. As far as
I know, this poster is not a diabetic, and has no particular
stake in the discussion, except an attempt to get to the
facts of the matter. This has been
reposted with her permission, and she has added her
qualifications as well.
YMMV, take it for what it's worth.
Bev
Caveat: Many of the statements that follow are my own
opinion, and are not to
be interpreted as a statement of fact. I will try to
remember to clearly identify those statements that are my
opinion, and not a generally recognized
scientific fact. I have not done any personal scientific
research on the subject, just a review of the appropriate
literature. For the record, I am
currently unemployed and thus not on the payroll of any
chemical company (though I would like to be, I don't take
bribes). I am not a doctor, nutrtionist, or even a
biochemist, but I am a chemist. I have both a BS and a
Masters degree in chemistry, and am a member of both the
Green Chemistry and
Food Chemistry divisions of the American Chemical Society.
For those who weren't at the Northside meeting, one of the
gentlemen (who I
happen to like, nothing against him is to be implied, no
names, I'm sure he
honestly believes what he read and that some of his problems
were caused by it,
and I sure don't expect non-scientists to be able to
understand the whole picture) gave some information about
the health effects of aspartame that he
had found on the web. The information was all frightening
in nature. I've
heard various people in the past say that they'd heard all
sorts of horrible
things about it, but this was the first time that I heard
any of the details of
the anti-aspartame claims. However, as a trained chemist,
many of the statements set off warning bells in my mind as
to their veracity. The first
warning bell went off when he read part of a list of "92
symptoms of aspartame
poisoning". As a general statement, very few substances have
that many, wildly
varied "symptoms". To quote an article from Time
magazine on the aspartame
scare, "Just as no single chemical cures everything,
none causes everything." The second warning bell went
off with the statement
that when aspartame is in water at temperatures above
freezing, it breaks down
into such well-known toxins as formaldehyde and methanol.
That did not jive
with what I know of its chemical structure and properties.
For one thing, aspartame is two bonded amino acids, and
breaks back down into those amino acids, and methanol. Yes,
methanol is poisonous if you try to drink it in appreciable
quantities. But small amounts are contained in many natural
products, including fruit/fruit juice. For instance,
(Quoting from the Lancet) "a 330 ml can of
aspartame-sweetened soft drink will yield about 20 mg
methanol, an equivalent volume of fruit juice produces 40 mg
methanol, and an
alcoholic beverage about 60-100 mg." More on the amino
acids later.
Aspartame is quite stable at room temperature. When heated
to high temperatures, it will decompose (the decomposition
products are the same as
when ingested), but the only real problem is that the
sweetness is reduced.
(It's a sweetener, if there's less of it, the item will be
less sweet.) But,
even though I had serious doubts about the sources, I
decided to reserve judgement until I could check those
sources myself. I like to read a lot of
chemical publications, and had never heard anything about it
as a toxin. I've
read about other interesting uses of it, and I've read about
the biological/environmental dangers of many other common
substances. (Check into
environmental estrogens and bisphenol-A if you want to be
freaked.) The gentleman said that many of the studies
proving the danger were done by major
universities and governmental health bodies, and gave
several websites where
more information could be found.
When I returned home, I did a quick google search on
aspartame. Just glancing
at the first page of search results, the warning bells
started going off louder
than a fire alarm. Firstly, none of the domain names
belonged to anything that
I would consider to be a reputable source, none of them were
universities, governmental bodies from ANY country, or even
independent labs. Also, the brief blurb that google gave for
all of the sites - they were all statements
that I thought were obviously designed to be sensational
scare tactics (one
even compared aspartame to Hitler!) None of them used any
terms that were vaguely scientific, and instead relied
heavily on capitalized scary words. I
went to some of the highest ranked sites, including one that
the gentleman had
mentioned was helpful, and my already low confidence
level took a nosedive.
They were all (in my opinion) disorganized, irrational, and
unscientific - even
assuming that all the statements were true, the logic
behind their conclusions
just did not follow. For one thing, everything was
anecdotal, and anecdotes
don't prove squat, even when there are many well-documented
ones. These anecdotes were all anonymous, with no
documentation whatsoever, all were FOAF
(Friend of a Friend) tales. I dug through for links to the
studies they touted
by reputable sources, and to my chagrin, they did not lead
off-site (to the
original journal or university study or anything of the
sort, any impartial
organization), and did not actually include the
peer-reviewed journal articles
to which they alluded, but instead summarized them in their
own terms. This
was a major red flag - if the authors were indeed trying to
be scrupulous, they
should have given a link to the full text, or at the bare
minimum the abstract
(a quick summary of a scientific paper - for journals where
there is a charge
for the actual article, the abstracts are always freely
available.) would be
made available. When someone is trying to prove something
that doesn't have
research support behind it, a common tactic is to pick and
choose snippets from
reputable sources, completely ignoring (and hiding from
their own readers) the
surrounding context, and of course everything
contradictory. "Real" scientific
journal articles almost always include the researcher's
assessment of possible
problems with the experiment, possible flaws in tthe theory
or conclusion, and
other possible explanations for the phenomena in question.
This would be very
simple to take out of context, as would a study that
indicated that it was initiated by reports that turned out
to be unfounded.
I FINALLY managed to find some sites from what I consider to
be reputable sources of chemical information - hell, my
standard in this case was just sites
that had any information at all on other chemistry, as
opposed to just anti-aspartame. Then I found what my
favorite urban-legend-busting sites had
to say on the subject. Needless to say, they debunked the
whole myth for the
reasons I had been suspicious, as well as some further
details. I'll put those
links at the bottom.
Now what about those amino acid decomposition products? As
scary as that phrase may sound, trust me, it's not. Amino
acids are often called "the building blocks of life". They
are the building blocks that combine to form
proteins. The amino acids in question, both natural ones we
use in our bodies,
are aspartic acid (hence the name - it's a non-essential
amino acid, which means that our bodies can make it from
other nutrients) and phenylalanine. Many of you have
probably noticed the warning on packages containing aspartame
products along the lines of "Warning phenylketonurics:
contains phenylalanine"
which definitely sounds scary, to be sure. Well,
phenylalanine is actually an
essential amino acid, which means we NEED to ingest a
certain amount of it in
our foods. Phenylketonuria is a (relatively rare,
fortunately) genetic disorder where the afflicted person
does not have enough of the enzyme required
to use phenylalanine properly, so they have to avoid foods
that contain high
amounts of it, whether they are natural or artificial foods.
From the Lancet,
"The yield of phenylalanine is about 100 mg for a can of
diet soft drink, compared with 300 mg for an egg, 500 mg for
a glass of milk, and 900 mg for a
large hamburger." Anything with protein will be broken down
into the amino
acids when digested, and most all protein sources yield
much more phenylalanine
than a diet soda.
Now, let me clearly state that there are some people who are
exceptionally sensitive to just about every single substance
known to mankind. And if you
ingest enough of ANYTHING, even water, it can and will cause
problems of some
sort. In my personal opinion, the main danger of aspartame
to the average person is that foods and beverages that
contain it generally tend to be ones
that aren't exactly healthy in the first place. Animal
studies have led to the
conclusion that (in the general populace) the toxicity
level is over 2000mg/kg
body weight, and the FDA has suggested (to be on the safe
side) a maximum dose
of 50mg/kg a day. A standard 12 ounce can of diet soda has
approximately 180
mg - a few simple calculations show that a 150 lb person
would have to drink
almost 19 diet sodas to reach the FDA's recommended limit.
Now, I love my Diet
Dr. Pepper, refer to it as my addiction, but I don't drink
nearly THAT many,
and I sure don't weigh 150 lbs. The small amount of methanol
is easily handled
by our bodies - yes, it is first converted to formaldehyde
then formate, but
the amount is so tiny that it doesn't present a problem.
Remember, a can of
diet soda yields about half as much methanol as a can of
fruit juice. Have you
ever heard of millions of people getting methanol poisoning
due to fruit juice?
If methanol were toxic to us at the level in soda, we would
have stopped eating fruit and drinking beer and wine
thousands of years ago.
So, in my personal opinion, based on what I have read about
aspartame and my
general chemical knowledge, unless you have a sensitivity
issue, consuming aspartame products in moderate amounts will
probably not cause many problems
other than those due to the less-than-nutritious products in
which they are
found. There is a new, chemically similar sweetener that was
approved this
July, neotame I believe it's called, but that's all I know
about it at the moment, and I haven't seen it in any
products. Oh, and as far as Splenda goes,
I haven't read anything negative about it, but... It's a
chlorinated version
of sucrose, 600 times sweeter than sugar. Halogenated
substances in general
(those that have had fluorine, chlorine, etc.) have serious
toxicity and environmental issues - you may have heard of a
little something known as the
destruction ozone layer due to CFCs (chlorinated
fluoro-carbons, chemicals containing chlorine, fluorine and
carbon atoms). Not all substances with them
are bad, we do need a certain amount of salt, sodium
chloride, but that did
raise my eyebrows when I first saw the chemical structure.
At the low levels
at which it's used, it may very well be perfectly harmless.
Those urban-legend sites, which go into some of the details
of the hoax email
chain letter claims and have more specific rebuttals of the
claims (no heavy
chemistry involved), and links to rebuttals by reputable
sources are:
http://www.snopes.com/toxins/aspartame.asp
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blasp.htm
As I said, these are my opinions and conclusions only.
Aspartame isn't exactly
good for you, but for most generally healthy adults, in
moderate amounts, it
isn't exactly bad for you, either, other than the fact that
it is mostly found
in junk food. If you do notice unusual problems after
consuming aspartame products, by all means, stop
consuming them.<
Remove the "SpamFree" for email, please. Join us in the
Diabetic-Talk Chatroom on UnderNet /server irc.undernet.org
--- /join #Diabetic-Talk More info:
http://www.diabetic-talk.org/
Answers:
"Bev" <sambalover~aol.comSpamFree wrote in message news:20031214174423.19889.00000209~mb-m01.aol.com...
We have all heard about the "evils" of Aspartame from
trolls, Betty Martini and
company, etc. I ran into this post on another group I read
frequently. The post was made by a trusted, regular
poster, and I have chosen to remove her name and the name
of said group so that she and they won't be bombarded with
troll posts. I just thought it was a very interesting take
on the common myths
surrounding aspartame, and thought some of you might be
interested. As far as
I know, this poster is not a diabetic, and has no particular
stake in the discussion, except an attempt to get to the
facts of the matter. This has been
reposted with her permission, and she has added her
qualifications as well. YMMV, take it for what it's worth.
Bev <snip Thank you for your post and the info you included. I've checked out the two links as well as some of the testimonials. I'm not going to start an "Aspartame war" here. I'm not a chemist, nor am I a doctor, a politician, an herbalist or a person who can say "yea" or "nay" about Aspartame. I'm just a (somewhat) regular person who's been diagnosed as having "complex partial seizures", "bipolar disorder", "clinical depression, severe at times", as well as "migraine headaches" and "type II diabetes". I am not an Aspartame troll. If someone likes or uses it, that's their decision. I don't push it on them, tell them they're gonna die, or call them (hopefully) a troll or any such name (despite my recent response to a very poorly written post after I asked a real question that was very much improperly answered). I'll simply tell you, FWIW, my own experiences with saccharine, aspartame and sucralose. Saccharine has never bothered me, as far back as I can remember, since I "sampled" my first bottle of "Sucaryl" (sp), about 40 years or so ago. The "aftertaste" is objectionable to me though, and I don't use it. Splenda (sucralose) doesn't seem to bother me as long as I use it in very small amounts, otherwise it's just too sweet for me and then the "aftertaste" shows up as well. I've also tried Equal (Aspartame) with less than desirable results. Even in small amounts, products containing Aspartame seem to help kick in a migraine for me, sometimes severe, with little warning. Mind you, I already suffer from the migraines, but if I can go a few days without one and I'm feeling fine, then get one after drinking a Pepsi One, for example, there goes the rest of my day, even after I've given myself an injection of Imitrex. (The other forms of Imitrex do nothing for me when I get a migraine). I don't know why the aspartame bothers me so much, why the saccharine does not (except for aftertaste), or why I can tolerate splenda in moderation without objection except to the aftertaste. That's just the way it is for me. Really - and I'm not getting paid to say this, have nothing to gain by making this stuff up or lying, and I'm not getting any personal satisfaction of baring my soul, as it were, in a newsgroup of thousands +. It's just my personal experience. YMMV -- Steve, T2 since 9/29/03
Answers:
Even in small amounts, products containing Aspartame seem
to help kick in a migraine for me, sometimes severe, with
little warning. I understand exactly what you mean, Steve. You have a sensitivity, just as the OP mentioned. It's not impossible. I think the point is that just because some folks have a sensitivity, it doesn't make aspartame a bad product. Birth control pills gave me migraines and raised my blood pressure at the age of 21. I only took them for 2 1/2 months, but I had the first migraine of my life right after I started them. And they began coming regularly, twice weekly. They've been a good product for millions of women, but they were potentially deadly for me. I was once told I'd be in a nursing home before I was 40 if I insisted on taking them. So......they aren't something I'd ever have used again, regardless of how many people used them without any problems whatsoever. That's just how it goes, I suppose. No one product can be used by the entire universe safely. Bev Remove the "SpamFree" for email, please. Join us in the Diabetic-Talk Chatroom on UnderNet /server irc.undernet.org --- /join #Diabetic-Talk More info: http://www.diabetic-talk.org/
Answers:
That is just about the most sensible post on the subject I have read to date. I'll be keeping a copy for the next time a newbie makes an innocent enquiry. Really, all I knew previously was that I have been using it for ages without any apparent ill effects. So have millions of other people. If however it had caused side effects, I would simply have dropped it, without any fuss. No one is "forcing me" to use it. Thank you so much for passing this on. Annette "Bev" <sambalover~aol.comSpamFree wrote in message news:20031214174423.19889.00000209~mb-m01.aol.com...
We have all heard about the "evils" of Aspartame from
trolls, Betty Martini and
company, etc. I ran into this post on another group I read frequently. The
post was made by a trusted, regular poster, and I have
chosen to remove her
name and the name of said group so that she and they
won't be bombarded with
troll posts. I just thought it was a very interesting
take on the common myths
surrounding aspartame, and thought some of you might be interested. As far as
I know, this poster is not a diabetic, and has no
particular stake in the
discussion, except an attempt to get to the facts of
the matter. This has been
reposted with her permission, and she has added her
qualifications as well.
YMMV, take it for what it's worth.
Bev
Caveat: Many of the statements that follow are my own
opinion, and are not to
be interpreted as a statement of fact. I will try to
remember to clearly
identify those statements that are my opinion, and not a
generally recognized
scientific fact. I have not done any personal scientific
research on the
subject, just a review of the appropriate literature. For
the record, I am
currently unemployed and thus not on the payroll of any
chemical company
(though I would like to be, I don't take bribes). I am not a doctor,
nutrtionist, or even a biochemist, but I am a chemist. I
have both a BS and a
Masters degree in chemistry, and am a member of both
the Green Chemistry and
Food Chemistry divisions of the American Chemical Society.
For those who weren't at the Northside meeting, one of the gentlemen (who I
happen to like, nothing against him is to be implied,
no names, I'm sure he
honestly believes what he read and that some of his
problems were caused by it,
and I sure don't expect non-scientists to be able to
understand the whole
picture) gave some information about the health effects of aspartame that he
had found on the web. The information was all frightening in nature. I've
heard various people in the past say that they'd heard
all sorts of horrible
things about it, but this was the first time that I
heard any of the details of
the anti-aspartame claims. However, as a trained
chemist, many of the
statements set off warning bells in my mind as to their
veracity. The first
warning bell went off when he read part of a list of "92
symptoms of aspartame
poisoning". As a general statement, very few substances
have that many, wildly
varied "symptoms". To quote an article from Time
magazine on the aspartame
scare, "Just as no single chemical cures everything, none
causes everything." The second warning bell went off with the statement
that when aspartame is in water at temperatures above
freezing, it breaks down
into such well-known toxins as formaldehyde and
methanol. That did not jive
with what I know of its chemical structure and
properties. For one thing,
aspartame is two bonded amino acids, and breaks back
down into those amino
acids, and methanol. Yes, methanol is poisonous if you try
to drink it in
appreciable quantities. But small amounts are
contained in many natural
products, including fruit/fruit juice. For instance,
(Quoting from the
Lancet) "a 330 ml can of aspartame-sweetened soft drink
will yield about 20 mg
methanol, an equivalent volume of fruit juice produces 40 mg methanol, and an
alcoholic beverage about 60-100 mg." More on the amino acids later.
Aspartame is quite stable at room temperature. When
heated to high
temperatures, it will decompose (the decomposition
products are the same as
when ingested), but the only real problem is that the
sweetness is reduced.
(It's a sweetener, if there's less of it, the item
will be less sweet.) But,
even though I had serious doubts about the sources, I
decided to reserve
judgement until I could check those sources myself. I like
to read a lot of
chemical publications, and had never heard anything
about it as a toxin. I've
read about other interesting uses of it, and I've read about
the biological/environmental dangers of many other common
substances. (Check into
environmental estrogens and bisphenol-A if you want to be freaked.) The
gentleman said that many of the studies proving the
danger were done by major
universities and governmental health bodies, and gave
several websites where
more information could be found.
When I returned home, I did a quick google search on
aspartame. Just glancing
at the first page of search results, the warning bells
started going off louder
than a fire alarm. Firstly, none of the domain names
belonged to anything that
I would consider to be a reputable source, none of them were universities,
governmental bodies from ANY country, or even
independent labs. Also, the
brief blurb that google gave for all of the sites - they
were all statements
that I thought were obviously designed to be
sensational scare tactics (one
even compared aspartame to Hitler!) None of them used
any terms that were
vaguely scientific, and instead relied heavily on
capitalized scary words. I
went to some of the highest ranked sites, including one
that the gentleman had
mentioned was helpful, and my already low confidence
level took a nosedive.
They were all (in my opinion) disorganized, irrational, and unscientific - even
assuming that all the statements were true, the logic
behind their conclusions
just did not follow. For one thing, everything was
anecdotal, and anecdotes
don't prove squat, even when there are many
well-documented ones. These
anecdotes were all anonymous, with no documentation
whatsoever, all were FOAF
(Friend of a Friend) tales. I dug through for links to the studies they touted
by reputable sources, and to my chagrin, they did not lead off-site (to the
original journal or university study or anything of the
sort, any impartial
organization), and did not actually include the
peer-reviewed journal articles
to which they alluded, but instead summarized them in
their own terms. This
was a major red flag - if the authors were indeed
trying to be scrupulous, they
should have given a link to the full text, or at the
bare minimum the abstract
(a quick summary of a scientific paper - for journals
where there is a charge
for the actual article, the abstracts are always freely available.) would be
made available. When someone is trying to prove
something that doesn't have
research support behind it, a common tactic is to pick
and choose snippets from
reputable sources, completely ignoring (and hiding from
their own readers) the
surrounding context, and of course everything contradictory. "Real" scientific
journal articles almost always include the researcher's
assessment of possible
problems with the experiment, possible flaws in tthe
theory or conclusion, and
other possible explanations for the phenomena in
question. This would be very
simple to take out of context, as would a study that
indicated that it was
initiated by reports that turned out to be unfounded.
I FINALLY managed to find some sites from what I
consider to be reputable
sources of chemical information - hell, my standard in
this case was just sites
that had any information at all on other chemistry, as
opposed to just
anti-aspartame. Then I found what my favorite urban-legend-busting sites had
to say on the subject. Needless to say, they debunked
the whole myth for the
reasons I had been suspicious, as well as some further
details. I'll put those
links at the bottom.
Now what about those amino acid decomposition products?
As scary as that
phrase may sound, trust me, it's not. Amino acids are often called "the
building blocks of life". They are the building blocks that combine to form
proteins. The amino acids in question, both natural
ones we use in our bodies,
are aspartic acid (hence the name - it's a
non-essential amino acid, which
means that our bodies can make it from other nutrients) and phenylalanine.
Many of you have probably noticed the warning on packages containing aspartame
products along the lines of "Warning phenylketonurics:
contains phenylalanine"
which definitely sounds scary, to be sure. Well,
phenylalanine is actually an
essential amino acid, which means we NEED to ingest a
certain amount of it in
our foods. Phenylketonuria is a (relatively rare,
fortunately) genetic
disorder where the afflicted person does not have
enough of the enzyme required
to use phenylalanine properly, so they have to avoid
foods that contain high
amounts of it, whether they are natural or artificial
foods. From the Lancet,
"The yield of phenylalanine is about 100 mg for a can of
diet soft drink,
compared with 300 mg for an egg, 500 mg for a glass of
milk, and 900 mg for a
large hamburger." Anything with protein will be broken
down into the amino
acids when digested, and most all protein sources yield
much more phenylalanine
than a diet soda.
Now, let me clearly state that there are some people who are exceptionally
sensitive to just about every single substance known to
mankind. And if you
ingest enough of ANYTHING, even water, it can and will cause problems of some
sort. In my personal opinion, the main danger of
aspartame to the average
person is that foods and beverages that contain it
generally tend to be ones
that aren't exactly healthy in the first place. Animal
studies have led to the
conclusion that (in the general populace) the toxicity
level is over 2000mg/kg
body weight, and the FDA has suggested (to be on the
safe side) a maximum dose
of 50mg/kg a day. A standard 12 ounce can of diet soda has approximately 180
mg - a few simple calculations show that a 150 lb
person would have to drink
almost 19 diet sodas to reach the FDA's recommended
limit. Now, I love my Diet
Dr. Pepper, refer to it as my addiction, but I don't drink
nearly THAT many,
and I sure don't weigh 150 lbs. The small amount of
methanol is easily handled
by our bodies - yes, it is first converted to
formaldehyde then formate, but
the amount is so tiny that it doesn't present a problem. Remember, a can of
diet soda yields about half as much methanol as a can
of fruit juice. Have you
ever heard of millions of people getting methanol
poisoning due to fruit juice?
If methanol were toxic to us at the level in soda, we
would have stopped
eating fruit and drinking beer and wine thousands of
years ago.
So, in my personal opinion, based on what I have read about aspartame and my
general chemical knowledge, unless you have a
sensitivity issue, consuming
aspartame products in moderate amounts will probably
not cause many problems
other than those due to the less-than-nutritious products
in which they are
found. There is a new, chemically similar sweetener that was approved this
July, neotame I believe it's called, but that's all I
know about it at the
moment, and I haven't seen it in any products. Oh, and
as far as Splenda goes,
I haven't read anything negative about it, but... It's a chlorinated version
of sucrose, 600 times sweeter than sugar. Halogenated
substances in general
(those that have had fluorine, chlorine, etc.) have serious toxicity and
environmental issues - you may have heard of a little
something known as the
destruction ozone layer due to CFCs (chlorinated
fluoro-carbons, chemicals
containing chlorine, fluorine and carbon atoms). Not all substances with them
are bad, we do need a certain amount of salt, sodium
chloride, but that did
raise my eyebrows when I first saw the chemical
structure. At the low levels
at which it's used, it may very well be perfectly harmless.
Those urban-legend sites, which go into some of the
details of the hoax email
chain letter claims and have more specific rebuttals of
the claims (no heavy
chemistry involved), and links to rebuttals by
reputable sources are:
http://www.snopes.com/toxins/aspartame.asp
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blasp.htm
As I said, these are my opinions and conclusions only.
Aspartame isn't exactly
good for you, but for most generally healthy adults, in
moderate amounts, it
isn't exactly bad for you, either, other than the fact
that it is mostly found
in junk food. If you do notice unusual problems after
consuming aspartame
products, by all means, stop consuming them.<
Remove the "SpamFree" for email, please. Join us in the
Diabetic-Talk Chatroom on UnderNet /server irc.undernet.org
--- /join #Diabetic-Talk More info:
http://www.diabetic-talk.org/
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.551 / Virus Database: 343 - Release Date: 11/12/03
Answers:
Thanks for a great post. I've been turned on to mad Betty for a couple years now since a friend sent me the nonsense and I went straight to Snopes. But it's sure a lot more interesting to hear it from a chemist. Jon
Answers:
"Bev" <sambalover~aol.comSpamFree wrote in message news:20031214202537.10976.00000569~mb-m24.aol.com...
Even in small amounts, products containing Aspartame seem
to help kick in a migraine for me, sometimes severe, with
little warning.
I understand exactly what you mean, Steve. You have a
sensitivity, just as the
OP mentioned. It's not impossible. I think the point is that
just because some folks have a sensitivity, it doesn't make
aspartame a bad product.
Birth control pills gave me migraines and raised my blood
pressure at the age of 21. I only took them for 2 1/2
months, but I had the first migraine of my life right
after I started them. And they began coming regularly,
twice weekly.
They've been a good product for millions of women, but they
were potentially deadly for me. I was once told I'd be in a
nursing home before I was 40 if I insisted on taking them.
So......they aren't something I'd ever have used again,
regardless of how many people used them without any problems whatsoever.
That's just how it goes, I suppose. No one product can be
used by the entire universe safely.
Bev
Remove the "SpamFree" for email, please. Join us in the
Diabetic-Talk Chatroom on UnderNet /server irc.undernet.org
--- /join #Diabetic-Talk More info:
http://www.diabetic-talk.org/
Thanks for your understanding, Bev. "...have a sensitivity...". I like that. After all these years of "I can't use that" and "no, thank you" (re: artificial sweeteners, diet drinks, etc;) you'd think I would've figured that one out by myself.
Answers:
I have been using it for ages but always have had that small doubt in my mind about using it but this makes me feel much more confident!!!
Answers:
"Nan Eklund" <naneklund~aol.com wrote in message news:20031214184724.03823.00000924~mb-m07.aol.com...
One of the best and most objective posts I have seen in
years of reading this
newsgroup. I use a lot of aspertame. In coffee, in other
drinks, in cooking. I also have
a good friend who is violently allergic to it. There ARE a
few of them. (Remember the people who are allergic to
peanuts?) I'm sure that aspertame isn't suited to everyone too. I know it gives ME a headache, so I steer clear of it. Mind you, it's like you say Nan, some people are killed by peanuts yet I can eat a bin bag full and not die :-) The problem with the aspertame brigade is a two sided problem. Those who say it has NO effect on anyone, and those who say it has an effect on everyone. They both give no quarter and they're both vehement in the defence of their standpoint. Seems to me aspertame is like anything else you could think of. It's Ok for some, but not for others. I can't understand why people don't just leave it at that, but of course, if they did, we'd never have Betty-fests :-))) Beav
Answers:
"Lance-A-Lot" <eelusive~comcast.nut wrote in message news:p-CdndfoVeWPo0Ci4p2dnA~comcast.com...
"...have a sensitivity...". I like that. After all these
years of "I can't use that" and "no, thank you" (re: artificial sweeteners, diet drinks, etc;) you'd think I would've figured that one out by myself.
Although I don't have a problem with artificial sweeteners (thank goodness!), I do have a problem with some popular foods. I don't bother explaining much -- if "no thanks, I'm allergic" doesn't get someone to stop pushing it, "it makes me throw up" does! I once explained that "well, actually I have no problem with it -- once I throw up I'm fine". bj
Answers:
"Bev" <sambalover~aol.comSpamFree wrote in message news:20031214174423.19889.00000209~mb-m01.aol.com... *snip* Aspartame http://www.snopes.com/toxins/aspartame.asp http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blasp.htm This is one of the most intelligent and well-written posts that I've ever read on Usenet. Thanks.
Answers:
I miss cyclamates (sp?), they tasted great! Jon
Answers:
Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ha Ha ha, etc LOL -- Bob
Diabetes With People