FDA rebuffs call for aspartame probe

CNN ^ | 06.30.07

[Coleus]

A U.S. consumer group called for an urgent Food and Drug Administration review of the safety of aspartame on Monday, but the FDA said there was no immediate need to do so despite a new study showing the sweetener may cause cancer.  Italian researchers published a new study last week that showed aspartame -- widely used in soft drinks -- might cause leukemia, lymphoma and breast cancer in rats.   "This is the second study by the same lab showing that aspartame causes cancer in rats," Center for Science in the Public Interest executive director Michael Jacobson said in a telephone interview.  Aspartame is used mostly in soft drinks but is also sold in packets to use in coffee, tea or on food. "People can easily avoid products using Nutrasweet or Equal and keep these products away from kids," Jacobson added.

Morando Soffritti of the Ramazzini Foundation in Bologna, Italy, and colleagues tested aspartame in rats, which they allowed to live until they died naturally.  Their study of more than 4,000 rats showed a lifetime of eating high doses of the sweetener raised the likelihood of several types of cancer.  "On the basis of the present findings, we believe that a review of the current regulations governing the use of aspartame cannot be delayed," Soffritti's team wrote in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, which is published by the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.  "This review is particularly urgent with regard to aspartame-containing beverages, heavily consumed by children."  FDA spokesman Michael Herndon said the agency had not reviewed the study.

"However, the conclusions from this second European Ramazzini Foundation are not consistent with those from the large number of studies on aspartame that have been evaluated by FDA, including 5 previously conducted negative chronic carcinogenicity studies

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

The Army's secret weapon

Wouldn't this be illegal torture under the Geneva Convention?

[Scotswife]

“Wouldn’t this be illegal torture under the Geneva Convention?”

shhh...Pelosi will call for my house to be “shut down”

he’s a master torturer - but I’m kindof fond of him.

I must be suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.

[krb]

Where do you get a soft drink with real sugar in it?

[HiTech RedNeck]

Mexico, and major American soda pop companies during the Jewish holiday season of Passover (since corn products are religiously proscribed as potentially carrying leaven).

[brityank]

I remember the banning of Cyclamate sweetner back in the 70’s. Found you’d have died from drowning first — you needed to take the equivalent of four thousand cans of soft drinks to get the levels they were talking about.

To say nothing about fried bacon.
Runny eggs.
Salt.
Sugar.
ad nauseum!

Moderation works well, they ought to try it.

[HiTech RedNeck]

There is no accounting for taste.

[Scotswife]

Awww!Don’t listen to him!
Jump off the wagon - have a diet soda and chatawhile!

[HiTech RedNeck]

My personal “diet demon” experience with sucralose is that too much of sucralose laden drinks tends to cause the trots. Some kind of interference with the balance of water in the bowel. Others can apparently quaff it nearly endlessly with no ill effect. Maybe the taste didn’t sell well to people used to aspartame Coke, and sugar Coke aficionados saw insufficient need to switch. To me, Coke needs sugar to be palatable. Pepsi is better suited to aspartame.

[Scotswife]

” Pepsi is better suited to aspartame.”

yes definitely...pepsi and Dr. Pepper.

I use the sucralose on my toast (cinnamon and “sugar” toast)
and in my tea.
But for soda I prefer aspartame.

[slow5poh]

“It’s not about wonder, it’s about science. Groups like CSIPI should not be allowed to commit emotional terrorism.”

What do you mean?
I just want to know the bottom line, is it good for you or not.

[slow5poh]

“Oh, the false sense of security by ordering an extra large Diet Coke at McDonalds along with a tub of French fries. Why bother?”

Yeah i used to work at mcD’s when i was younger. It was really quite amusing when a person would order a double quarter pounder with cheese and fries, supersized, but with a diet coke? Geez, your already ingesting like 1500 calories, you may as well go for the real coke. Too funny.

[conservative cat]

My personal “diet demon” experience with sucralose is that too much of sucralose laden drinks tends to cause the trots.

My personal experience with it, too. First it gives me a headache and then a couple of hours later, I am running to the toilet. I avoid it like the plague, now!!

[slow5poh]

I am not in favor of banning anything. I don’t think aspartame should be banned. They always say something is bad for you, then years later a new study will say it’s not. And basically everything seems to cause cancer. LOL. I just think moderation is best. That way, if you only have a few bottles of pop a week you can afford to have the non diet version. Especially if your a coke person like me, cause diet coke is nasty. I kind feel like if your going to drink diet caffeine free soda, you may as well drink water.

[shield]

The "Bressler Report"

(Note: This is the text of an FDA report on Searle)

EIR 4/25/77 to 8/4/77

Looking for the Bressler Report? (The Original FDA Audit) Aspartame is safe, right? After all, the FDA approved it. Newsflash! They orginally didn't! Jerome Bressler is now retired from the FDA but he was an employee when all the shenanigans were going on. In a conversation with Dr. Betty Martini, Dr. H. J. Roberts and Dr. Russell Blaylock, he admitted the studies on aspartame were so bad that when his report was retyped, the FDA removed the worst 20 percent. So, as bad as this report is, it was originally worse. Dr. Roberts wrote his congressman demanding the FDA release the other 20 percent, but they refused saying it was confidential.

[Born to Conserve]

“...two major components of aspartame are commonly found in many foods naturally.”

The difference between a nutritious compound and a deadly one can be tiny. The difference between cis and trans fats, for example, is a mere bend in the molecule. Removing an oxygen from the link between the “components” of a disacharide could easily turn it or its metabolites into a carcinogen. Remember that DNA has a ribose structure in it — a sugar. Mess with sugar molecules and you could create a sugar derivative that confuses a genetic enzyme — viola, cancer.

The only safe chemicals are chemicals we have evolved with.

[Born to Conserve]

“Oh, the false sense of security by ordering an extra large Diet Coke at McDonalds along with a tub of French fries.”

I bought a chocolate milkshake at a Ben and Jerry’s (for my special chocolate milkshake diet). The girl asked if I wanted skim or whole milk.

[miliantnutcase]

Diet soda can cause the shakes and tremors in the hands if I have too much. I usually drink the regular octane Mnt Dew anyway cuz it’s so damn good ;).

[HiTech RedNeck]

If “evolution” is looked to as the architect of mankind, it would be expected to do a spectacularly poor job with the needs of the aged. After all, once you’re past child rearing age, if not child bearing age (and in past times, it was normal for people to begin bearing children while still in their teens), you are no longer Darwin fodder. Culture and spirituality and reverence for the aged are all luxury in a world where one is for oneself and survival is for the fittest.

[Pinkbell]

My aunt has always said that about aspartame for years. Personally, I’ve read that it is can cause bad stomach aches and headaches. I usually stick with the regular sugar. I’ll have something with aspartame on occasion if that is all that is available. I don’t the taste of diet coke compared with regular coke.

[freespirited]

I dont know that I would call it good for you, but if it doesnt give you any symptoms, I wont call it bad for you. I'm not sure there is anything that has been studied more than aspartame, and the vast majority of results point to safety.

Here's an interesting abstract from a study using humans. If you arent familiar with odds ratios, in this case the lower the ratio, the more the artificial sweetener was associated with REDUCED RISK of the cancer; the higher the ratio, the more artificial sweetener was associated with HIGHER risk.

1: Ann Oncol. 2007 Jan;18(1):40-4. Epub 2006 Oct 16. Artificial sweeteners and cancer risk in a network of case-control studies.

BACKGROUND: The role of sweeteners on cancer risk has been widely debated over the last few decades. To provide additional information on saccharin and other sweeteners (mainly aspartame), we considered data from a large network of case-control studies.

METHODS: An integrated network of case-control studies has been conducted between 1991 and 2004 in Italy. Cases were 598 patients with incident, histologically confirmed cancers of the oral cavity and pharynx, 304 of the oesophagus, 1225 of the colon, 728 of the rectum, 460 of the larynx, 2569 of the breast, 1031 of the ovary, 1294 of the prostate and 767 of the kidney (renal cell carcinoma). Controls were 7028 patients (3301 men and 3727 women) admitted to the same hospitals as cases for acute, non-neoplastic disorders. Odds ratios (ORs), and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs), were derived by unconditional logistic regression models.

RESULTS: The ORs for consumption of saccharin were 0.83 (95% CI 0.30-2.29) for cancers of the oral cavity and pharynx, 1.58 (95% CI 0.59-4.25) for oesophageal, 0.95 (95% CI 0.67-1.35) for colon, 0.93 (95% CI 0.60-1.45) for rectal, 1.55 (95% CI 0.76-3.16) for laryngeal, 1.01 (95% CI 0.77-1.33) for breast, 0.46 (95% CI 0.29-0.74) for ovarian, 0.91 (95% CI 0.59-1.40) for prostate and 0.79 (95% CI 0.49-1.28) for kidney cancer.

The ORs for consumption of other sweeteners, mainly aspartame, were 0.77 (95% CI 0.39-1.53) for cancers of the oral cavity and pharynx, 0.77 (95% CI 0.34-1.75) for oesophageal, 0.90 (95% CI 0.70-1.16) for colon, 0.71 (95% CI 0.50-1.02) for rectal, 1.62 (95% CI 0.84-3.14) for laryngeal, 0.80 (95% CI 0.65-0.97) for breast, 0.75 (95% CI 0.56-1.00) for ovarian, 1.23 (95% CI 0.86-1.76) for prostate and 1.03 (95% CI 0.73-1.46) for kidney cancer. A significant inverse trend in risk for increasing categories of total sweeteners was found for breast and ovarian cancer, and a direct one for laryngeal cancer.

CONCLUSION: The present work indicates a lack of association between saccharin, aspartame and other sweeteners and the risk of several common neoplasms.