More info about aspartame - especially important for pregnant women

[BecauseImWorthIt]

Seems there could be a link between aspartame and premature deliveries

.

Blimey, scary stuff!

The link is fairly scary.

But much of that is fear-mongering not supported by the research cited and in contrast to the best evidence available.

Certainty like that in the link, although appealing is not possible in this situation.

DBennett: "But much of that is fear-mongering not supported by the research cited and in contrast to the best evidence available.
Certainty like that in the link, although appealing is not possible in this situation."

DBennett, what are you talking about???

The research Conclusions: "Daily intake of artificially sweetened soft drinks may increase the risk of preterm delivery. Further studies are needed to reject or confirm these findings."

From Abstract published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

For those of you that haven't read the OP's linked article here's an interesting section about the above study:

"which looked at the relationship between soft drink consumption and pregnancy outcome in almost 60,000 Danish women . The pregnancy outcome assessed in this study was ?pre-term delivery? ? defined as delivery before 37 weeks of gestation (normal gestation is 40 weeks).

For sugar-sweetened beverages, there was no relationship between level of consumption and risk of pre-term delivery (in other words, higher levels of sugary soft drink consumption were not associated with an increased risk of pre-term delivery).

It was a different story for artificially sweetened drinks though:

Compared to those drinking no artificially sweetened drinks, those having 1 or more servings of artificially sweetened drinks a day were found to be at a 38 per cent increased risk of pre-term delivery. Consumption of 4 or more servings a day was associated with an increased risk of 78 per cent."

The abstract does end with:

Daily intake of artificially sweetened soft drinks may increase the risk of preterm delivery. Further studies are needed to reject or confirm these findings.

Your linked website ends with:

However, given their ability for a myriad of toxic effects within the body, my advice would be to avoid them like the plague (pregnant or not).

That statement is not supported by any of the papers cited, or by the literature at large.
Not to mention it's tone.

Going back to the abstract, I would direct you to the words "may" and to the last sentence.
The investigators, unlike the author of you link, understands that this is one study (although it is large and seems to be well conducted), cannot in itself prove causation rather than correlation and thats before we think about the confounders you can't discount.

"their ability for a myriad of toxic effects"?

The website you link is clearly written by someone who:
a) is scaremongering
and
b) has already made up their mind, and is reading papers only to confirm their beliefs, not to try to find out the truth

c) doesn't construct their sentences particularly well

(I know, that point would be better made if I hadn't accidentally hit 'post' in the middle of it )

From From Abstract published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

"Results: There was an association between intake of artificially sweetened carbonated and noncarbonated soft drinks and an increased risk of preterm delivery (P for trend: 0.001, both variables). In comparison with women with no intake of artificially sweetened carbonated soft drinks, the adjusted odds ratio for women who consumed 1 serving of artificially sweetened carbonated soft drinks/d was 1.38 (95% CI: 1.15, 1.65). The corresponding odds ratio for women who consumed 4 servings of artificially sweetened carbonated soft drinks/d was 1.78 (95% CI: 1.19, 2.66). The association was observed for normal-weight and overweight women. A stronger increase in risk was observed for early preterm and moderately preterm delivery than with late-preterm delivery. No association was observed for sugar-sweetened carbonated soft drinks (P for trend: 0.29) or for sugar-sweetened noncarbonated soft drinks (P for trend: 0.93).

Conclusions: Daily intake of artificially sweetened soft drinks may increase the risk of preterm delivery. Further studies are needed to reject or confirm these findings."

Their results are showing that they are finding an association between the intake of artificially sweetened drinks, and the risk of pre-term delivery.

The odds ratio increases as intake of artificially sweetened drinks increases.

They do not find the same association for sugar sweetened soft drinks.

Their conclusion says daily intake may increase the risk of preterm delivery, as this is how clinical results are worded, however I think most people can see a pattern here...?

Dr Briffa's advice is sound when he ends his post "It?s unlikely that we?ll ever know if artificial sweeteners worsen pregnancy outcomes. However, given their ability for a myriad of toxic effects within the body, my advice would be to avoid them like the plague (pregnant or not).

"However, given their ability for a myriad of toxic effects within the body, my advice would be to avoid them like the plague (pregnant or not)."

This is not by any means a "sound" statement.

There is no evidence aspartame has any toxic effects at realistic intakes.

And it may have benefits in calorie controlled diets.

It is not similar to plague.

I dont think so.
I drink a can of diet coke every day.
Am 39 weeks pg and ready for this baby!!!

Here's a great article that may help Straight Talk About Aspartame. It ends:

"To sum it all up, I?ll cede to William Campbell Douglass II, M.D., who said it better than I can and with far more impressive credentials:

?No matter how you look at it, aspartame is bad news in my book. The massive introduction of this neurotoxin into the food supply is nothing less than biological warfare against every single one of us, and the only acceptable solution is to ban it from the food chain.?"

William Campbell Douglass II, M.D. Full article Artificial sweeteners linked to brain tumors

So far as I'm concerned, aspartame and other artificial sweeteners are an offence against the tastebuds if nothing else and I seriously resent them creeping into more and more food and drink.

I really struggle to see what is great about that article.
No new science, customer surveys treated as evidence and a basic misunderstanding of the word toxin.

And to end up quoting William Campbell Douglass II M.D is bizarre.

Aspartame being likened to biological warfare, genocide and treason is an interesting spin on the available evidence.

But then we can't expect to much from William Campbell Douglass II M.D., he doesn't believe chemotherapy treats cancer:

www.web-purchases.com/640SRCANC/WRHBJ9GB/landing.html

But for $20 he'll tell you what does.

Anyone reaching for their credit card?

Have these studies been adjusted for age, socio-demographics and body weight etc?

Young women are more likely to drink diet coke than herbal tea. Young women are more likely to deliver early./

Body weight is accounted for (although somewhat crudely) as can be told from the abstract.

The other two are extremely plasuible confounders and plasuable confounders are the "achilles" heal of retrospective observational research, no matter how large the sample.

that doesn't mean we can pretend they are nbot there, as surely in some instances they will be more of a factor than others!

Whether or not you drink a lot of diet drinks may have some correlation with how healthy your diet is in general. It probably has some correlation with how likely it is that you drink, smoke or use drugs - after all, if you're avoiding caffiene and aspartame, you're hardly going to start smoking weed, are you?

I agree with you colditz, this is the really complicated area of epidemiology.

They may have tried to take this into account but the paper is behind a pay wall (the bane of my internet life).

And I refuse to pay (or more accurately get my employer to pay) for study so far outisde my own area of interest.

DBennett

I find it strange that you try to discredit William Campbell Douglass II M.D on the grounds of commercialism, however you have no critiscm about multi-billion pound industry that is Aspartame. No comment about the sequence of events that got Aspartame approved:

"Immediately after President Reagan took office in 1981, G.D. Searle applied for approval of its artificial sweetener, aspartame. After years of unwavering rejection, they got the green light.

The head of this company just happened to be a member of the new White House inner circle: Donald Rumsfeld. His friend, Arthur Hull Hayes, got the plum job as head of the FDA. One of his first acts was to convene a panel to look into aspartame ? and when the panel was ready to rule against it, he overruled them and approved it anyway.

While Rummy continued to wreak havoc on the nation for decades, Hayes left the FDA and joined a public relations firm ? not just any old P.R. firm, but the one that had been handling business for? G.D. Searle, the maker of aspartame"
From Link

DBennet, you've nothing to say about the revolving door that is Monsanto and the FDA (Monsanto owned the Aspartame manufacturer Searle when they got their approval) ?
Open Letter To The GAO: Michael Taylor, Monsanto Attorney Should Be Removed From The FDA Because Of Conflict Of Interest, Aspartame Approval Reinvestigated And Banned

DBennett: "And to end up quoting William Campbell Douglass II M.D is bizarre.

Aspartame being likened to biological warfare, genocide and treason is an interesting spin on the available evidence."

From Dr. Douglass's article Artificial sweeteners linked to brain tumors:

"The massive introduction of this neurotoxin into the food supply is nothing less than biological warfare against every single one of us, and the only acceptable solution is to ban it from the food chain."

"A toxin like aspartame goes to many different types of cells, but it seems to have a particular liking for the cells of the central and peripheral nervous systems. That means that the damage from aspartame can show up anywhere the nerves are ? which, of course, is anywhere in the body. And because it attacks your body at the cellular level, it can cause any number of diseases. The collection of signs and symptoms will vary, but the diseases will still come back to one root cause ? aspartame"

"Did you know it?s against the law to expose people to a drug found to induce cancer in experimental animals? (It?s called the ?Delaney Clause.?) Doing so amounts to genocide and treason, both of which, as I understand it, are illegal."

The 12 U.S. environmental health experts, in their letter to the FDA also urged for an immediate review of the Ramazzini Foundation second study and ended that, if that review confirms that aspartame caused cancer in the laboratory animals, the FDA must invoke the ?Delaney amendment? and revoke its approval for the artificial sweetener.

Is that enough "biological warfare, genocide and treason" for you?

DBennett, you aren't by any chance paid to trawl the net looking for Aspartame threads to try to discredit, are you....? Just a thought.

"DBennett, you aren't by any chance paid to trawl the net looking for Aspartame threads to try to discredit, are you....? Just a thought."

No, I'm not.
But thanks for asking.

And for the record, I could say plenty about the cozy relationship between regulation and industry, in all sectors and on both sides of the atlantic.

And, if I had used a Monsanto press release as evidence, your comments might have relevence.

But I have been using well-conducted evidence from scientists with little conflict of interest (and those there are are disclosed) to inform my opinion.

Your evidence always seems to take the form of a rant attached to a billing form.

As a rule of thumb, if anything you read talks about 'toxins' without specifying exactly what they are talking about, it's bollocks.

Dbennett: "Your evidence always seems to take the form of a rant attached to a billing form."

If I rant, it is because I passionately believe that Aspartame can damage human beings and I want as many people to know alternative information, so that they can look into the subject and come to their own, informed conclusion.

I do not profit from any information I give. I give it freely for other people to consider alternative information regarding this important subject.

The information you're posting to is not the best available though.

You didn't link to the study with an explainer of the methods, results and discussion and conclusions.
And with appropiate disclaimers based on it's limitations.

You linked to a alt-med website selling detox products which likened aspartame to the plague.

That is not responsible or appropiate behaviour for someone wnating other to be able to make up their own minds.

That's trying to scare people into agreeing with your mind.

I posted today about Morrison's the supermarket magazine where they had done one of those panel of mum taste test things.

Several of the mums had referred to the no added sugar drinks as the healthy choice for families.

It irritated me that nobody pointed out the arguments against chemical sweeteners.

Jonicomelately: "It irritated me that nobody pointed out the arguments against chemical sweeteners."

Jonicomelately, you are quite right.

It's because most people want to believe the paid employees of big business....sorry I mean 'experts'.

Corporations are having a great big laugh at us....no wonder! It's all too easy!