posted 05-01-2003 11:34 AM            

BUT, I am amazed at the stuff that gets passed around posing as information. Let's be clear: diet coke will not strip the paint off cars; caffeine does not make you gain weight; there is no formaldehyde in diet sodas (it has been hypothesized that aspartame can form formaldehyde in tiny amounts when sharply heated. This is unproven, and besides, this would--if proved--only apply to uses in cooking. Who fries their diet sodas? And besides the besides, there are one or two brands with no aspartame.) Most sodas--diet or not--contain well under 100mgs. of sodium (read the labels)-making them a low-sodium drink.

People will say anything about anything on these boards. Let's use a little common sense (have you never seen soda spilled on a car, did the paint come off?), let's do at least a LITTLE research before believing everything we hear--(for instance, let's read labels if we want to know about sodium content).

What's up with this stuff?

For those who have a powerful sweet tooth, if diet sodas (or diet iced teas) help you lose weight, go for it!! Whatever health problems people are theorizing about these beverages cannot compare to the actual health problems of excess weight. Especially since it appears--at least based on what is written here--that these supposed health problems amount to a lot of hooey.

I still prefer iced tea. But, each to his own.

peace

sean

posted 05-01-2003 05:12 PM            

yes, there is much "claimed" on almost any side of any issue. that's why it is important to look into things, not just believe what we hear. For example, there have been several studies of whether non-sugar sweeteners increase insulin levels at all (never mind "spike" them). No, this effect is not found.

I don't care, really. I think diet sodas are hardly green vegetables--it's not like we NEED some for good health, after all. It's just that I am constantly amazed by the stuff that gets passed around the internet. Scientific or nutritional urban legends, and the like. And artificial sweeteners are one place these seem to be numerous. So, it gets me going.

And, I worry that people are being told to stay away from one tool they might want to use to control excess weight, when we know that excess weight is a REAL health problem for millions. So, there ya go.

I don't know about the road tar thing (I'm reasonably sure lemon juice would work, by the way), but I was reacting to someone saying soda took the PAINT off cars--i mean really.

So dazey--relax. There are really major issues out there in the world. Don't sweat this one a minute longer than you have to.

posted 05-02-2003 09:41 AM            

here's a few:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9062523&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11890951&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10888287&dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9884024&dopt=Abstract
See what you think

posted 05-02-2003 10:14 PM            

By the way, the last of those four studies I listed (just the first four I could find in a half hour or so) happens to find an insulin effect for every sweetener EXCEPT aspartame! Weird, really, considering what we read on the web about aspartame.

As you see, the others, and several similar studies, simply find that artificial sweeteners, especially aspartame, do not spike insulin (nor have they any effect on insulin or blood sugar at all), and do not hinder, but in fact assist, in loss of body fat, by substituting for the calories/carbs of sugar.

Some things are actually logical. Not many, but some.

peace!

posted 05-03-2003 05:53 PM            

Will it strip the paint off of a car? I don't know. Has anyone done this? But cruising through the internet I found quite a lot of interesting stories. Diet coke is supposed to be useful for engine repair, in that it dissolves some substances because it has a high concentration of phosphoric acid.

Here's some more interesting things that I found on the 'net about coke (Coca-Cola) - it didn't say it was diet coke - but coke nonetheless. I'm not saying these are true - just what I found on the internet. It was said that the active ingredient in Coke is phosphoric acid. I simplified the following below and rewrote it from what I read on the internet:

1) In some states in the US, the highway patrol carries Coke to remove blood stains.

2) In two days a steak will dissolve in a bowl of Coke.

3) Coke works great as a toilet cleaner, removing stains.

4) Removes rust spots from car bumpers.

5) Cleans up battery terminals in your car.

6) Used to loosen up bolts.

7) Helps remove grease from clothes.

8) Dissolves a metal nail in about 4 days.

Some other information:

1) The diet coke syrup concentrate is considered a hazardous material - and a sign must be placed as a warning.

2) The distributors of Coke have been using it to clean their engines for years.

I have a hard time believing that coke will dissolve a steak. Is that true?

posted 05-20-2003 12:20 PM            

there's lots more like that.

posted 05-27-2003 04:43 PM            

mmcgraw103,

Hi! "After the Fall" Diet Sprizers has a whole line of diet sodas that are sweetened without any artificial sweeteners (using lo han fruit extract). Many health food grocery stores carry them. I make my own stevia-sweetened diet soda ocassionally during the Summer. Can make gallons at a time, but have never tried a cola version -- just lemon/lime.

posted 05-28-2003 12:12 PM            

My feeling is that there are people who have sensitivities to it and they should use it sparingly if at all. For the rest of us, I think it's pretty safe.

posted 05-29-2003 06:31 PM            

Hi! The only way to weed out studies funded by parties with bias is to read the full studies themselves (not the abstracts/PR pieces online). After weeding out all of the manufacturer-sponsored studies and studies involving manufacturer consultants and trade groups (ILSI, IGTC, etc.) almost everything that is left raises toxicity issues with aspartame -- including significant amounts of formaldehyde accumulation in the brain, liver, and kidenys at relatively low levels of ingestion (e.g., self-embalming):

"These are indeed extremely high levels for adducts of formaldehyde, a substance responsible for chronic deleterious effects that has also been considered carcinogenic.
....
"It is concluded that aspartame consumption may constitute a hazard because of its contribution to the formation of formaldehyde adducts."
[Life Sciences (scientific journal), Vol. 63, No. 5, pp. 337+, 1998]

Since *independent* research has linked aspartame to migraines/headaches, memory loss, vertigo, fibromyalgia symptoms, depression-related symptoms, worsening seizures and since independent human research on formaldehyde exposure has shown it to cause irreversible genetic damage (long-term exposure), fertility problems, headaches, musculoskeletal problems, cardiac problems, neurobehavioral symptoms, sleeping problems, fatigue, nausea, seizures, cognitive adverse effects, cytogenic effects on blood lymphocytes, etc., I think it's a good idea to go with more time-tested low-carb sweeteners such as stevia and lo han fruit extract, or even ki-sweet. On the other hand, there are probably some advantages to self-embalming and slow poisoning, but I can't think of any at the moment. :-)

posted 05-31-2003 07:47 PM            

I not saying there is absolutely safe for anyone and everyone, I think there are people who don't react well with it. Just like with anything and everything I think there are people who have side effects from it and negative interactions. However, what puzzles me is that if it is as unsafe and dangerous as some people are saying, why it is that reported side effects are relatively uncommon?

I used to be on the other side of the issue. However, as a member of the healthcare community that I decided to read through as much of the data as possible and come to a reasonable personal conclusion using the same approach to the scientific method as I would do in my day to day clincal decision-making.

I read transcripts from scientific debates, listened to the opinions of other physicians, research scientists and toxicologists and took their considerations in mind while looking over the data available. What consistently puzzled me was why seemingly well-meaning scientists and doctors were more than willing to present their opinion on the internet, but were less than average and frequently wrong when debating with people on the other side of the issue. This frustrated me, and I admit, I wanted them to be right, as I was anti-aspartame as well. However, as I reviewed more and more material, I found that aspartame is rather extensively studied, probably much more than most other compounds in food science.

The research without apparent bias tended to be in favor of the resonable safety of aspartame. Additionally, the same research each and every one of us has access to is also reviewed in detail by members of our country involved in approving health related practices and products.

My stance is that if aspartame is proven to be unsafe, then it will be because of research that has not been substantiated at this point in time; that what we have right now is not sufficient to warrant consumer alerts.

However, if the information is as cut and dried as some people think that aspartame is clearly unsafe (and I am a scientist who can read and understand the significance of scientific data) then one must also believe there is conspiracy in this country and in the government officials in the rest of the world. Just in the United States, if there is an aspartame conspiracy, then it would include the FDA, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Diabetes Association, The Epilepsy Institute, the American Academy of Family Physicians. Additionally, it would also mean a sad day for existing chemical toxicology data.

I don't believe in this type of broad sweeping conspiracies.

I know everyone has an opinion on aspartame safety. We all should. I am not saying that any of you are absolutely wrong, and I'm not going to say that you do not know how to read research (as I think it was implied about me). I can't verify that about you guys just as it can't be verified against me.

I respect your opinions and you have every right to have them. If research comes out next week or next year proving it to be unsafe, then at least we have many groups of individuals who did the best they could based on what they knew at the time. So it is not my complete and irrevocable conclusion to 100% certainty that aspartame is safe. I believe that it is based on what research I have seen.

posted 05-31-2003 11:48 PM            

Hi!

Reported toxicity reactions to aspartame are very common. Between 1982 and 1995 (when the FDA admitted to stopping collection of adverse reactions), 7,000 reaction reports had been received. This represented over 75% of all reactions that were reported to the FDA's Adverse Reaction Monitoring System (ARMS). Reported adverse reactions include seizures, migraines, fatigue, memory loss, vision loss, sleep problems, death, heart problems, speech impairment, mood changes, joint pain, GI tract problems, etc. (*Part* of the U.S. DHHS report on aspartame reactions is available online, search phrase: "US Department of Health and Human Services stationary" )

In 1993, the FDA Commissioner estimated that ~1% of adverse drug reactions were reported to the FDA. Since physicians were encouraged to report adverse drug reactions, but not encouraged to report aspartame reactions, we can be sure that less than 1% of adverse reactions were reported to the FDA. So, the 7,000 *reported* reactions represent at least: 7,000 / 0.01 = 700,000 aspartame reactions from 1982 to 1995.
(See: Journal of the American Medical Association 269:2765-68.)

There are several reasons why the 700,000 aspartame reactions is far too low an estimate. Testimony from representatives of Community Nutrition Institute in 1987 US Congressional hearings on aspartame reported that: 1) the FDA had been transferring callers complaining of aspartame reactions to the AIDS Hotline; and 2) FDA sattelite offices had not been forwarding adverse reaction reports to the head
office. These charges were not denied by the FDA at the hearing. (See, for example, Congressional Record, Volume 131, No. 106, August 1, 1985, page S10841).

But the main reason the 700,000 number as of 1995 is low is because it represents only adverse effects recognized by the aspartame user or their physician. Anyone who has taken the time to read the *full* 1984 CDC report on aspartame (available on the Internet), the analysis of 551 toxicity reactions in Journal of Applied Nutrition, Volume 40, page 85-94, or many of the other clinical reports in the scientific literature or on the Internet can see that people often use aspartame for months or years before clinically-obvious symptoms appear and then they often do not easily connect their symptoms with slow aspartame poisoning. The recent independent study on aspartame, excitotoxins and fibromyalgia symptoms demonstrate this as well. Therefore, there is some unknown number of people who are experiencing symptoms but have not tested whether those symptoms are due to aspartame poisoning. I believe the number is quite high.

Finally, as I pointed out earlier, aspartame ingestion leads to a significant exposure to (and accumulation of) formaldehyde. Three diet sodas per day provide approximately twice the amount of formaldehyde that has been shown to cause irreversible genetic damage from long-term formaldehyde exposure in humans. Obviously, the average person or physician will not be able to recognize this adverse effect without appropriate laboratory tests.

By the way, there are many, many aspartame toxicity reaction reports available online to anyone who searches for them.

> The research without apparent bias tended to be in
> favor of the resonable safety of aspartame.
> Additionally, the same research each and every one
> of us has access to is also reviewed in detail by
> members of our country involved in approving health
> related practices and products.

This is simply incorrect. Several years ago, I was asked to work on a meta-analysis of aspartame research and funding sources. I declined due to time constraints. But I have read thousands of studies related to aspartame and the metabolites. Anyone who actually reads the research knows that after eliminating industry funded and conducted research (including reviews by ILSI consultants), almost all of the independent research has found toxicity concerns with aspartame. Dr. Ralph Walton did a preliminary report on this issue and that preliminary report is available online. However, it is not only the funding bias that is an issue with industry research. Most of the industry research is badly flawed -- e.g., aspartame and seizure studies (very short studies while subjects on anti-seizure medication), aspartame and headaches (75% of placebo group experience adverse reactions in this one-day study), aspartame and health population (50% increase in adverse reactions in aspartame group but statistical acrobatics allows sanitized claim of "no statitiscally significant difference" for the abstract), aspartame and diabetes (active placebo), aspartame and methanol (using an outdated, 1969, measuring technique incable of showing biochemical changes), etc., etc. Fortunately there is plenty of independent research that is available. Also, there is independent scientific analysis of all of the key aspartame issues available online for people who simple do a google web search for "aspartame".

> I read transcripts from scientific debates, listened
> to the opinions of other physicians, research
> scientists and toxicologists and took their
> considerations in mind while looking over the data
> available.

There is no substitute for reading the actual research and/or speaking with *independent* researchers who have studied the issue in detail. Many scientists, physicians, the lay public are busy and tend to rely on perusing a few abstracts and some reviews. Manufacturers of junk foods and dangerous products know this. So, flooding the scientific literature with as many convincing-sounding abstracts and reviews
as possible has become quite common. For example, how many scientists know that since 1978 the monosodium glutamate industry hid aspartame in the beverages mixtures given to the placebo group in industry-funded MSG experiments. (40% of aspartame is a free-form excitotoxin like MSG.) That's something one doesn't find out by reading abstracts.

> Just in the United States, if there is an aspartame
> conspiracy, then it would include the FDA, the
> American Medical Association, the American
> Academy of Pediatrics, the American Diabetes
> Association, The Epilepsy Institute, the American
> Academy of Family Physicians.

The information available from the FDA comes from FDA beaurocrats. There are statements from FDA scientists available online related to aspartame health hazards. A recent lawsuit by the Alliance for Bio-Integrity demonstrated that what FDA scientists say and what the
beaurocrats say can be two different things. The FDA's own team of scientists was against approval of aspartame (three to two) -- that information is available online in a 1987 UPI investigation. An independent Public Board of Inquiry voted against approval of aspartame.

But the FDA Commissioner approved it and not long afterwards became a high-paid consultant for the manufacturer's PR firm. This information is available online, in GAO reports, and in documents submitted in the Congressional Record. Not a conspiracy, just typical government politics and the "revolving door" between industry and government.

The statement by the American Medical Association that came out in the mid-1980's was basically a cut-and-paste job on what the FDA Commissioner stated in the Federal Register in 1983. The rest of the organizations listed above have never done a thorough
review of the literature. For example, the American Diabetes Association is so confused about the issue that they still imply on their web page that a provably-lethal dose of aspartame is "safe" for life-long use. Many of the people that are in these organizations are wonderful, well-meaning people. But they rely on information from the manufacturer and government beaurocrats rather then relying on independent research and independent researchers. Fortunately, a large and quickly-growing number of lay persons, physicians and scientists already know about aspartame toxicity and that is why products that advertise as "aspartame free" or "no aspartame" are so common.

> What consistently puzzled me was why seemingly well-
> meaning scientists and doctors were more than
> willing to present their opinion on the internet,
> but were less than average and frequently wrong when
> debating with people on the other side of the issue.
> This frustrated me, and I admit, I wanted
> them to be right, as I was anti-aspartame as well.

Many well-meaning scientists and doctors are understandably busy. So, while they know from clinical experience and reading some of the independent literature that aspartame is a slow poison, they often have not spent time poking holes in all of the manufacturer public relations that typically comes up in debates. I used to be involved in these types of debates with manufacturer scientists and many others, but prefer to just exchange general health-related information these days. However, I'd be happy to poke a hole or two in the manufacturer PR if you
have anything very specific you would like me to address. If I can't answer it, I can pass it along to various other experts if necessary. No longer any need to be frustrated. :-)

Cordially,

posted 06-01-2003 12:07 AM            

Abby,

That's very interesting! I have read statements from others who have spoken to people who worked for the manufacturer in the 1970's and had similar things to say. Unfortunately, these former employees usually have confientiality agreements and are afraid to say anything publically. There are organizations online (e.g., Mission Possible) that are looking for whistleblowers if you know of any.

Cordially,

posted 06-01-2003 01:44 AM            

Let me ask you a YES/NO question: do you believe that every one of the agencies and organizations I mentioned above are guilty of hiding / witholding / ignoring the truth?

I guess I'm just not much into conspiracies.

posted 06-01-2003 01:16 PM            

Just something to think about....I don't personally drink Diet Coke. YUCK!! All diet sodas taste terrable...give me a REGULAR coke any day.....but my husband does drink diet (Pepsi).

Wouldn't you think that if there was something seriously wrong with the consumption of Diet sodas that there would be a huge uproar about it. The media makes big deals out of hoaxes so you don't think that they would be all over this like white on rice?? The media having a chance at taking down one of the most prominent companies in all the world (Coke)(Pepsi) and then not doing it?? NO WAY!! They would do it in a heart beat.

There are far worse things that you could take to get rid of the extra pounds...trust me...I have to live with it now for the rest of my life. Diet sodas are not going to cause you to have an ulser....YOU will give yourself one if you keep stressing over this rediculace issue.

I am with the last guy, I will salute you with a soda anyday!

posted 06-01-2003 02:14 PM            

Hi! A YES/NO question worded in a way that cannot
be answered with a simple "Yes" or "No." I will address
the question, but I am surprised that you didn't want to discuss recent research related to aspartame and formaldehyde poisoning/accumulation, FMS symptoms, memory loss, issues related to clinical aspects of aspartame poisoning, issues related to ways industry research is designed to avoid finding adverse
effects, independent research on aspartame, etc. Some of what I can share is picked up from working with independent researchers who have analyzed the research and some of it I was able to discover on my own by reading the research.

"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."
[Russell Blaylock, MD [Neurosurgeon and Neuroscientist]

There are three reasons your question cannot be answered with a simple "Yes" or "No":

1. Each organization has to be looked at separately. The answer for one organization might be "Yes" and another organization might be "No," but you grouped them all together in one question.

2. Each organization is made up of members and/or employees. As I pointed out in my last post, some employees such as FDA scientists have written pieces on aspartame health hazards (which are available online). Information put out agencies and organizations do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the scientist employees or members of the organizations. This is not unusual. For example,
in 1999 approximately 1,500 scientists and other professionals at the U.S. EPA headquarters voted unanimously against the viewpoint put out to the general public by EPA officials on one particular scientific issue

3. The question was worded without obvious reasons for
putting out scientifically inaccurate information: relying on information from the manufacturer, their consultants or FDA beaurocrats rather than reading the research and speaking with independent experts. This cannot be categorized as hiding or withholding or ignoring the truth, but can be categorized as not bothering to look for accurate scientific information due to perhaps laziness, misplaced faith in the manufacturer or a few government beaurocrats, not
wanting to challenge companies who fund the organization, etc.

When one looks at the ADA, for example, all one has to do it point out their published statements claiming that even a single, lethal dose of aspartame is "safe" for life-long use to demonstrate that they have little to no familiarity with the scientific research. Perhaps they get their information from the manufacturer as do some other organizations that also receive very large donations
from the manufacturer.

When one looks at the FDA, a number of issues are raised. Initially, the FDA urged that the manufacturer be prosecuted for fraud based on their pre-approval research. FDA scientists spoke out about this research, e.g.:

"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."
[FDA Toxicologist and Task Force member, Dr. Andrian Gross]

As I pointed out, the Public Board of Inquiry voted unanimously against approval. The team of FDA scientists was against aspartame approval. But the FDA Commissioner approved it and shortly afterwards became a high-paid consultant for the manufacturer's PR firm.
Many other FDA (and DHHS) officials went through the revolving door to the industry. For example, the head of the FDA's Center for Food Science and Applied Nutrition became a vice president of the National Soft Drink Association. It's simply politics and the
revolving door at government agencies -- certainly nothing new or unusual in this day and age.

I prefer to get scientific information directly from the research whever possible, not from a few people in organizations that have no demonstrated expertise or understanding of the research (and often receive large donations from the manufacturer). Also, a useful source of information is analysis of the research by independent researchers, physicians, and government scientists who have read the research -- this type of information is available online.

> I guess I'm just not much into conspiracies.

The word "conspiracy" is often used to dismiss a perspective without actually looking at or discussing the issue in detail. I'm sure that wasn't your intention, but I've encountered a cynic or two online that does use the word this way.

> Until science catches up with the rumors, I'll
> salute your right to your opinions with a cold Diet
> Coke!

The "science" is not trying to catch up with rumors, but it is trying to catch up with scientists and physicians. Unfortunately, a few of them are running away and hiding from it. :-) That's okay, though. The science will always keep chasing them -- even those who are still self-embalming with aspartame.

Cordially,

posted 06-01-2003 11:24 PM            

“I am surprised that you didn't want to discuss recent research related to aspartame and formaldehyde poisoning/accumulation…”

I believe the toxicology record and current pharmacodynamics as they are listed. What I mean by that in this case is that formaldehyde poisoning, if you look at how it directly affects human organisms is not what appears to be happening. Specifically, when someone is exposed to a defined (and rather low) amount of formaldehyde, several things happen. Most notably for our purposes, the person will have a decreased tolerance to future exposure to formaldehyde as well as numerous other pharmaceutical compounds. This information can be found in textbooks of pharmacology. The specific medical interest is pharmacologic complications associated with and aggravated by prior exposure to formaldehyde (not to mention interactions with some common pesticides). Given that a huge number of people in the US have been exposed to aspartame, which is supposedly creating formaldehyde toxicity, there would be an expected corresponding increase in complications associated with what would be previously normal doses of the medicines that do not jive with prior formaldehyde exposure in that patient. For example, if 125 mg of a certain drug “xyz” does not cause problems (aside from expected side effects) in normal individuals never exposed to formaldehyde ingestion, it will cause complications at 125 mg in persons with prior history of formaldehyde toxicity. According to the literature on the dangers of aspartame, this would mean that a high percentage of people would begin developing unforeseen problems and/or increased side effects from the medications [note that although literature is clear that a complete medical history be taken for persons needing such medicines, specifically, ruling out exposure to formaldehyde prior to prescription filling, there is no line of questioning on the part of the clinician or hospital, "have you ever consumed large amounts of aspartame"]. Such has not occurred throughout the class of compounds which have long had contraindications for persons with a history of formaldehyde ingestion and toxicity.

"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."
[Russell Blaylock, MD [Neurosurgeon and Neuroscientist]

Again, if this is certain, why do toxicology data related to pharmaceutical compounding not reflect this? They (pharmaceutical companies) have a large stake in making sure the general population of indicated users--which would definitely include a large segment of aspartame users--would not have complications.

"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."
[FDA Toxicologist and Task Force member, Dr. Andrian Gross]

Well, just as you mentioned above, these are not the opinions of the entire organization this individual is associated with.

“The word "conspiracy" is often used to dismiss a perspective without actually looking at or discussing the issue in detail. I'm sure that wasn't your intention, but I've encountered a cynic or two online that does use the word this way.”

As I mentioned, I have looked into the issue and have based my opinion on what I found. But I can’t help but wonder if the cynics you encountered were probably responding in such a manner because in order to change their view to that aligned with the anti-aspartame movement, based on current research they would have to dismiss other potentially valid and contradictory research and data.

“The "science" is not trying to catch up with rumors, but it is trying to catch up with scientists and physicians. Unfortunately, a few of them are running away and hiding from it. :-) That's okay, though. The science will always keep chasing them -- even those who are still self-embalming with aspartame.”

Statements like that make it difficult to have this discussion with you. I don’t like to debate with people who feel that just because I don’t see it their way they will either say I don’t know how to read scientific articles, say I’m running away and hiding from science, or say that I’m labeling others as conspiratorial just because I don’t agree that everyone else is ignorant of the “real data”. This is called a straw man argument, and I don't do those. It is my view, from a scientifically educated background that what I have seen is not enough to warrant the buzz words such as “self-embalming” and others that you have made. These on the other hand, are scare tactics used in attempt to frighten the masses into not doing something. Whereas they have no place in science. No running, no hiding, no labeling, no ignorance. I simply do not agree that there is strong and credible evidence to support widespread acceptance of your views.

posted 06-02-2003 02:42 AM            

Hi!

Most people do not develop decreased formaldehyde tolerance from short-term exposure. There are many studies on humans and formaldehyde toxicity that demonstrate health problems primarily from medium-term and long-term exposure. What is seen is:
Irreversible genetic damage (Shaham 1996); Headaches, fatigue, chest tightness (Main 1983); Sleeping problems, burning skin, fatigue, chest pain, dizziness (Liu 1991); Headaches, fatigue, IgE-mediated sensitization (Wantke 1996); Musculoskeletal, gastrointestinal, and cardiovascular symptoms (Srivastava 1992); Headaches, tiredness (Olsen 1982); Headaches, dizziness, nausea, lack of concentration ability (Burdach 1980); Cytogenic effects of blood lymphocytes (Suruda 1993); Fertility (adverse effects) (Taskinen 1999); Cognitive adverse effects (Kilburn 2000); Seizures and neurobehavioral impairment (Kilburn 1994); Headaches, skin problems (Proietti 2002); Low birth weight (Maroziene 2002), etc.

There is mixed evidence on sensitivity and IgE and IgG effects from formaldehyde exposure. Studies by Wantke are good examples. The formaldehyde research clearly shows that hypersentivity does not always occur even though chronic adverse effects can and do occur.

It is true that many people who do develop a formaldehyde sentitivity also develop a sensitivity to certain classes of drugs. Sulfa drugs are one such class. Sensitivity to sulfa drugs is very common as anyone can see by reading various web pages and scientific journal articles.

> According to the literature on the dangers of
> aspartame, this would mean that a high percentage of
> people would begin developing unforeseen problems
> and/or increased side effects from the medications

The published aspartame "literature" does not provide percentages of people who would develop medication problems. Formaldehyde exposure leads to chronic adverse effects in humans as seen in numerous human studies. In some cases (not all) a formaldehyde hypersensitivity develops. That subset of people would be expected to, in many cases, be reactive to certain classes of drugs. The adverse reaction rate changes to these types of drugs over the last 20 years is difficult to determine since use of these types of drugs has changed and since the FDA has changed reporting requirements.

However, since you posted no research information on adverse reaction rates to these types of drugs over the last 20 years, it makes me wonder if such research does exist. On the other hand, there is already independent evidence of formaldehyde exposure and accumulation from aspartame ingestion:

1. Formaldehyde exposure from aspartame can be calculated. For three diet sodas it is:
~600 mg * 10.9% * 30/32 * 90% =~ 40.0 mg
This calculation uses the aspartame industry's own
absorption rate estimate. The amount of formaldehyde is more than or equivalent to the exposure that caused adverse reactions in the above-mentioned research.

2. Formaldehyde has been shown to accumulate in the
brain, liver, kidneys at relatively low-level aspartame exposure:

"These are indeed extremely high levels for adducts of formaldehyde, a substance responsible for chronic deleterious effects that has also been considered carcinogenic.
....
"It is concluded that aspartame consumption may constitute a hazard because of its contribution to the formation of formaldehyde adducts."
[Life Sciences (scientific journal), Vol. 63, No. 5, pp. 337+, 1998]

3. 40% of aspartame is a free-form excitotoxin. Excitotoxins cause cell damage a lowered ATP levels. Formic acid (a formaldehyde metabolite) is an ATP inhibitor. There are numerous reasons to avoid exposure to excitotoxins and formaldehyde at the same time. I'll save this for a later post.

4. Many of the very large numbers of aspartame reactions reported to the FDA and in the scientific literature are similar to the types of reactions seen in formaldehyde research (see above) with the addition of some of the effects seen in human and animal studies on excitotoxin exposure.

>> "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."
>> [FDA Toxicologist and Task Force member, Dr.
>> Adrian Gross]

> Well, just as you mentioned above, these are not the
> opinions of the entire organization this individual
> is associated with.

Dr. Adrian Gross was one of the main scientists investigating the pre-approval research. The research was so bad that it lead to a series of three congressional hearings and the FDA was forced to create the Good Laboratory Procedures. Here is what the FDA Commissioner stated at that time (1974):

"[The manufacturer's studies were] incredibly sloppy
science. What we discovered was reprehensible."
[Alexander Schmidt]

A number of others in the FDA in addition to the FDA Commissioner agreed with the problems. Politics didn't take over until later in the process, especially after a new FDA Commissioner was appointed by Reagan.

> Statements like that make it difficult to have this
> discussion with you.

Well, despite my attempts to discuss the scientific literature, your posts did not discuss or mention any scientific literature, but instead repeatly made implications about conspiracies and rumors. When my attempts to discuss the science are categorized as conspiracies and rumors, it is "off-putting" -- perhaps similar to the way you might feel if your posts are categorized as hiding from the scientific literature. :-) I'm sorry and I will avoid the implication in the future. I hope you will do the same about "conspiracies" and "rumors."

By the way, I use "self-embalming" simply because independent research demonstrates formaldehyde accumulation (just like embalming) from aspartame ingestion. I agree that it is very slow "embalming," compared to what morticians do. I tend to avoid the term if I'm in a serious discussion of the scientific literature.

> Let me ask you an open-ended question: in your
> opinion why is it that many physicians and
> scientists without financial stake in aspartame are
> not joining your movement even after they are
> presented with your evidence?

I do not have a "movement." Like many others, I exchange information on a wide variety of health-related issues including aspartame toxicity.

However, I do get a very large number of requests from scientists and physicians on aspartame toxicity and some of them go on to write articles or forward information to patients or colleagues. It would be wild speculation to try and guess what percentage of physicians or scientists who read my scientific articles agree or disagree with what I said. Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of physicians and scientists I've corresponded seem to be very receptive to the information -- although I do often send much more than what's been discuss in this thread.

Cordially,

posted 06-03-2003 01:58 AM            

Point taken. Last time I checked this was an internet message board, not a scientific colloquium. Let me then take a minute to examine and comment on the documents you have provided in defense of your claims. For the record, you insisted on science being brought into this for any and all further discussion. I was perfectly content to keep it on a level of debate logic and not from a research analysis and presentation point of view.

Okey dokey, let's begin shall we?

Most people do not develop decreased formaldehyde tolerance from short-term exposure. There are many studies on humans and formaldehyde toxicity that demonstrate health problems primarily from medium-term and long-term exposure. What is seen is:
Irreversible genetic damage (Shaham 1996); Headaches, fatigue, chest tightness (Main 1983); Sleeping problems, burning skin, fatigue, chest pain, dizziness (Liu 1991); Headaches, fatigue, IgE-mediated sensitization (Wantke 1996); Musculoskeletal, gastrointestinal, and cardiovascular symptoms (Srivastava 1992); Headaches, tiredness (Olsen 1982); Headaches, dizziness, nausea, lack of concentration ability (Burdach 1980); Cytogenic effects of blood lymphocytes (Suruda 1993); Fertility (adverse effects) (Taskinen 1999); Cognitive adverse effects (Kilburn 2000); Seizures and neurobehavioral impairment (Kilburn 1994); Headaches, skin problems (Proietti 2002); Low birth weight (Maroziene 2002), etc.

What's have I debated previously within the confines of this quote? This material and volumes other can be found in many textbooks, research citings and toxicology reports. I feel it has little relevance to how aspartame is dangerous at this point because it is still speculation whether aspartame causes formaldehyde toxicity. The only connection from this quote between aspartame reported complaints and actual formaldehyde toxicity/exposure is some of the symptoms. You have presented a research finding that suggests aspartame is associated with formaldehyde toxicity. There are other research findings that demonstrate it would take ENORMOUS amounts of dietary aspartame to cause such toxicity.

Please see this document for confirmation (please by all means, don't take my word for it!):

Restani P, Restelli AR, Galli CL.Formaldehyde and hexamethylenetetramine as food additives: chemical interactions and toxicology. Food Addit Contam 1992 Sep-Oct;9(5):597-605

This will help clarify what is considered safe levels of formaldehyde ingestion.

Moving right along.

The adverse reaction rate changes to these types of drugs over the last 20 years is difficult to determine since use of these types of drugs has changed and since the FDA has changed reporting requirements.

I doubt that changed in FDA reporting requirements would neglect to overlook increased side effects with certain medications. Detailed data from my understanding is kept on these statistics. In the very least, the insurance companies who compile the greatest collection of consumer and public statistics in the world would make this association. Literally, I have known of instances where insurance data was able to pinpoint mortality rates of groups of individuals using data of extreme minutiae, including prescription and non-legend over the counter medications. This feasably could be analyzed further by either of us.

"It is concluded that aspartame consumption may constitute a hazard because of its contribution to the formation of formaldehyde adducts." [Life Sciences (scientific journal), Vol. 63, No. 5, pp. 337+, 1998]

Did you study this citation very carefully? Let me quote from the methods portion of the research "Two groups of rats were selected. The first group NC (Normal-Chronic, N=5) received a daily oral gavage of 0.68 mmol per kg of rat weight (200 mg per kg) of a water suspension (2.5 mL/kg) of non-radioactive aspartame (Sigma)."

Do you have any idea how much aspartame this is?!?

Consuming the rat to human equivalent AFTER conversion factors is still beyond what humans are capable of ingesting via diet drinks containing aspartame in any given day. If there is no applicable conversion factor then we are talking about figures that would be impossible for ANY human to reasonably consume (my word, we can't even drink that much volume of liquid even if it didn't have aspartame in it!).

I'm not picking on you but I would off this suggestion: do NOT consider using this study in defense of your claims! A closer look obviously reveals that these rats were clearly overloaded with MASSIVE amounts of aspartame.

Keep in mind that anything can be labeled as dangerous when consumed in quantities high enough.

Many of the very large numbers of aspartame reactions reported to the FDA and in the scientific literature are similar to the types of reactions seen in formaldehyde research (see above) with the addition of some of the effects seen in human and animal studies on excitotoxin exposure.

Many are also similar to placebo reported reactions. Speaking of, did you examine documents by the CDC on the supposed reactions reported to the FDA? Let me quote:

"In summary, currently available information, based on data with limitations as described in the report, indicates a wide variety of complaints that are generally of a mild nature. Although it may be that certain individuals have an unusual sensitivity to the product, these data do not provide evidence for the existence of serious, widespread, adverse health consequences attendant to the use of aspartame. Reported by Div of Nutrition, Center for Health Promotion and Education, CDC."

Do you think the CDC is a lazy group as well?

posted 06-03-2003 11:32 AM            

If you think it unsafe then don't drink it!!

If you think it safe then go and drink it!!

DONE!! No more fighting over this obserd topic.

posted 06-03-2003 12:40 PM            

> Did you study this citation very carefully? Let me
> quote from the methods portion of the research "Two
> groups of rats were selected. The first group NC
> (Normal-Chronic, N=5) received a daily oral
> gavage of 0.68 mmol per kg of rat weight (200 mg per
> kg) of a water suspension (2.5 mL/kg) of non-
> radioactive aspartame (Sigma)."

If you read the study, you know that the study had two parts. One part where 200 mg per kg was ingested and one part where only *** 10 mg per kg *** was ingested. Accumulation of formaldehyde was demonstrated after 10 mg per kg of aspartame was ingested. In fact, that information is available in the abstract: "Adult male
rats were given an oral dose of 10 mg/kg aspartame ...." and the body of the published study. This study is available in it's full form online.

10 mg per kg of aspartame is much more easily ingested by the average person. In fact, one of the earlier manufacturer-sponsored studies on children showed an average daily intake of 35 to 76 mg per kg of aspartame. [ Frey, Gunther H., 1976. "Use of
Aspartame By Apparently Healthy Children and Adolescents," Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Volume 2, page 401-415.] A series of three studies on overweight adults showed an average daily intake of aspartame from 8 to 36 mg /kg. [Amer. J Clin Nutr. 30:1638-1644; Physiol. Behav. 29:293-300].

Independent researchers have not yet determined how far
below 10 mg per kg of aspartame one will see accumulation of formaldehyde adducts (in the brain, liver, kidneys, etc.) Formaldehyde adduct formation is not limited to rodents as it has been demonstrated in humans as well: [Carraro, E., S. Gasparini, T. Petrini, P. Oitana, G. Gilli, 1997. "Immune response prevalence to formaldehyde-human serum albumin molecular adduct in a healthy population," Journal of
Environmental Pathology, Toxicology, and Oncology, Volume 16, Number 2-3, pages 215-218, 1997.; Carraro, E., S. Gasparini, G. Gilli, 1999. "Identification of a chemical marker of environmental exposure to formaldehyde," Environmental Research, Volume 80,
Number 2 Pt 1, pages 132-137, 1999.]

> There are other research findings that demonstrate
> it would take ENORMOUS amounts of dietary aspartame
> to cause such toxicity. Please see this document for
> confirmation (please by all means, don't take my
> word for it!):
> Restani P, Restelli AR, Galli CL.Formaldehyde and
> hexamethylenetetramine as food additives: chemical
> interactions and toxicology. Food Addit Contam 1992
> Sep-Oct;9(5):597-605

Please keep in mind that you are not the first person to come up with these arguments. Anyone who searches for "aspartame" online can find independent scientific information that addresses these and many other statements that were often originally brought up as a manufacturer public relations tool.

The Restani study is primarily about *formaldehyde ingestion* from food. However, with aspartame one *is not* ingesting formaldehyde. One is ingesting a chemical that quickly breaks down into methanol (and other things). The methanol is quickly and readily-absorbed [Davoli, E., et al., "Serum
Methanol Concentrations in Rats and in Men After a Single Dose of Aspartame," Food and Chemical Toxicology, Volume 24, No. 3, page 187-189.].

Methanol is then converted into formaldehyde
[Kavet, Robert, Kathleen M. Nauss, 1990. "The Toxicity of Inhaled Methanol Vapors," Critical Reviews in Toxicology, Volume 21, Issue 1, page 21-50.]

Some of the methanol may be converted directly into
formic acid in the retina (I'll save this discussion for later). As we have seen, some of the formaldehyde is stored as "adducts" in parts of the body.
However, whether it is stored as adducts or not, we know from numerous formaldehyde *exposure* studies that formaldehyde exposure at very low levels causes a wide variety of symptoms.

Now, before we go off into the "more methanol in fruit and alcoholic beverages" aspartame industry public relations statements, I suggest looking at a variety of discussions online that demonstrate protective
factors in these traditionally-ingested substances.

The levels of formaldehyde exposure that cause systemic adverse effects in the human studies I mentioned in my last post varied. At the low end was [Wantke, F., et al. 1996. "Exposure to Gaseous
Formaldehyde Induces IgE-Mediated Sensitization To Formaldehyde in School-Children," Clinical and Experimental Allergy, Volume 26, pages 276-280.] where 0.05 parts per million (ppm) of formaldehyde
caused adverse effects. The amount of formaldehyde exposure was: 0.05 ppm formaldehyde ~= 0.075 mg/m3
0.075 mg/m3 * 10 m3/workday = 0.75 mg/day (for a workday/schoolday)

Here is a quote from research related to formaldehyde exposure in workers:

"Complaints pertaining to gastrointestinal, musculoskeletal and carbiovascular systems were also more frequent in exposed subjects. In spite of formaldehyde concentrations being well within the prescribed ACGIH [American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists] limits of 1 ppm...." [Srivastava, A.K., et al., 1992. "Clinical studies of employees in a sheet-forming process at a paper mill,"
Veterinary and Human Toxicology, Volume 34, No. 6, page 525-527.]

The less than 1 ppm exposure means exposure to formaldehyde of less than 15 mg per workday (see above formula).

We know that methanol is readily-absorbed from aspartame and that it is quickly converted into formaldehyde. On the other hand, formaldehyde *directly* in food is not well-absorbed as pointed out by that very same researcher you cited:

"Ingestion represents a minor route of [formaldehyde] exposure because the dilution factor and the binding to the macromolecules present in food reduce
substantially the [formaldehyde] concentration that enters into contact with the gastrointestinal mucosa" [Restani, Patrizia, Corrado Galli, 1991. "Oral Toxicity of Formaldehyde and Its Derivatives," Critical Reviews in Toxicology, Volume 21, Issue 5,
pages 315-328.]

Restani points to a human study where 200 mg of formaldehyde per day was ingested for 13 weeks without any adverse effects. That is equivalent to
industrial formaldehyde exposure of 13.3 ppm. Obviously, Restani is correct about the lack of absorption of formaldehyde from food. But
this has little to do with aspartame since it is the methanol that is readily-absorbed and then converted into formaldehyde after it is in the bloodstream.

> Many are also similar to placebo reported reactions.
> Speaking of, did you examine documents by the CDC on
> the supposed reactions reported to the FDA? Let me
> quote:
> "In summary, currently available information, based
> on data with limitations as described in the report,
> indicates a wide variety of complaints that are
> generally of a mild nature.

Clearly, you did not read the *full* CDC report as I suggested. What you quoted above is a summary to the CDC report that was written by an FDA beaurocrat and attached to the report. The *full* CDC report is available online. To demonstrate how ridiculous that summary is, the *full* CDC report looked at complaints such as: seizures, insomnia, mood alterations, fatigue,
visual impairment, etc. Do you think seizures are "complaints that are generally of a mild nature"? Even headaches are not necessarily mild. Migraine headaches can be very painful. In fact, if someone were to experience chronic headaches from aspartame ingestion (as has been reported clinically), it can cause impairment of function worse than associated with arthritis or diabetes as discussed by [Solomon, G.D., F.G. Skobieranda, L.A. Gragg, 1993. "Quality of Life and Well-Being of Headache Patients: Measurement By the Medical Outcomes Study Instrument," Headache, Volume 33, Number 7, pages 351-358, 1993.] The *full* CDC report is important from a clinical perspective (even though it came out only a couple of years after aspartame approval). But as the authors of the *full* CDC report point out:

"It was not anticipated that this investigation alone could definitively establish whether ingestion of aspartame-containing products did or did not cause the symptoms reported. Definitive analysis and conclusions relative to causation are typically beyond the scope of the information that can be collected by passive surveillance systems such as those were consumers are encouraged to report complaints and concerns regarding products they have used."

One can find the *full* CDC report online by searching for the phrase: "Six hundred forty-five initial contacts".

> I doubt that changed in FDA reporting requirements
> would neglect to overlook increased side effects
> with certain medications. Detailed data from my
> understanding is kept on these statistics.

Well, unless you know of research showing the changing percentage of adverse effects to sulfa drugs and other classes of drugs, it's a moot point.

I would ask that you avoid demeaning statements such as:

> "but you seem convinced that you're right and anyone
> who does not agree that your research is worthy to
> change minds is somehow not seeing the correct view."

One could say the same thing about persons who believe that chain smoking is dangerous ... or that chronic exposure to 2 ppm formaldehyde is dangerous,
but these things are demonstrated from the research just like aspartame toxicity is demonstrated from independent research. You are trying to paint me as being entrenched even though I have read the research, but for someone who wanted to be "anti-aspartame" and who admittedly hasn't read all of the research,
you seem to be somewhat entrenched in your viewpoint.
I prefer we stick to discussions of the research.

Cordially,

posted 06-03-2003 12:48 PM            

It's a discussion albeit sometimes slightly heated. Interesting information is being presented. My thought is that if someone doesn't want the information, then they don't have to read the thread.

Cordially,

posted 06-03-2003 01:32 PM            

It was not my purpose to be demeaning if I was. As such, I offer a sincere apology. That sentence should have been written differently by me. Rereading it now, I admit it does sound a bit sharp. What I was implying was that I have admitted that as of right now I've not been convinced by what I've seen, but I'm not above realizing that I could wind up being proven wrong one day by new research. I was just trying to say that I have not heard that from you--any concession that perhaps the other side might have validity.

You're doing well debating me and I can even admit that I'm working hard to match wits with you on this issue. I only hope you get as much of a kick out of tossing words around as I do. I don't want it to seem like to you or anyone else that I'm mad or angry or overly critical, as I'm sure you don't want that either.

Please keep in mind that you are not the first person to come up with these arguments.

I should hope not. I misplaced my keys this morning, so I can't be that high on the food chain, after all.

Some of the methanol may be converted directly into formic acid in the retina

The term "formica" comes from the latin word for "ant", which formica looks like up close. Formic acid interestingly from my understanding is the chemical in ant bites that causes such irritation. By that token, should formic acid be likewise referred to as "ant-acid"?

Here is a quote from research related to formaldehyde exposure in workers:
"Complaints pertaining to gastrointestinal, musculoskeletal and carbiovascular systems were also more frequent in exposed subjects."

I have heard of this before. It is called WaffleHausen's Symphony Syndrome. Or greasy food gut bombs for slang.

"Do you think seizures are "complaints that are generally of a mild nature"?"

You should see me dancing---makes grand mal and Jacksonian seizures look like hiccoughs.

Well, unless you know of research showing the changing percentage of adverse effects to sulfa drugs and other classes of drugs, it's a moot point.

Quite correct. There is an obvious reason I'm not mentioning what class of drugs I was referring to. I'm keeping a few things on the QT in case I ever decide to do clinical research one day. Probably not, but who knows.

posted 06-04-2003 12:20 PM            

I am glad to see that this is not the case. I am not trying to play Mom, really!!

I know that I don't HAVE to read anything I don't wish to or anything that is offensive to me but my intent was to try and save what could be a cyber-friendship with another person going thru the same trials as yourself. Forgive me for playing mediator! I will keep my nose out of it.

God Bless,
KittyMom