More info about aspartame - especially important for pregnant women

[BecauseImWorthIt]

Seems there could be a link between aspartame and premature deliveries

Hi, this is for DBennett, first let me say that anyone who uses the term scaremongering to decsribe someone elses opinion has already lost my vote.

To be more helpful, what we should be looking at here is the whole picture of the study - Was the study a credible size? YES 59,334 Danish pregnant women; how long did the study last? 6 yrs.from 1996- 2002;are the people rersponsible for the study credible? YES,used the data from the Danish National birth cohort;Did anyone on the study have a vested interest? NO; Were the conclusions drawn supported by other scientific references? YES 35 of them:

After 6 years and several interviews with 59,334 pregnant women, the main Toxin named as the probable cause of the preterm deliveries found in the study is Methanol. What DBennett does not want you to know is
that 10% of aspartame is released as free methanol into the bloodstream everytime
you eat anything sweetened with aspartame.It dosen't finish there, the methanol further metabolises in your body to formaldehyde and formic acid.For your child's and your own sake, play safe - do not consume ANYTHING containing ASPARTAME at ANYTIME.

Not all of those of the references support their conclusions.
In fact, hardly any do.

This is the 1st study to report this finding.
The last articles published to deal with this stem from 1995 and 1988 and both say Aspartame is safe.

Now this is study is better designed, it's larger and prospective, but it's still can't demonstrate causation.
And we need to be careful about drawing any conclusions from one study.

Especially when it goes against the vast majority of the available evidence.

As for the idea that I, or anyone would mind if people knew that aspartame is broken down into 10% methanol is very odd.

The only problem I would have with scientific details being more widely known is when they are taken out of context in a bid to push an agenda.

Which is what is happening here.

You need more than 200mg of methanol per kg of body weight to get a toxic effect.
To get sufficent methanol from aspartame in soft drinks you'd have to drink around 600cans of diet soft drink at once.

You end with an appeal to play safe. If you insist in not consuming even 1/600 of a toxic level of a foodstuff, what exactly do you feel safe to eat?

Or are you basing your appeal on something other than data and evidence?

Dbennet: "You need more than 200mg of methanol per kg of body weight to get a toxic effect.
To get sufficent methanol from aspartame in soft drinks you'd have to drink around 600cans of diet soft drink at once."

Where is this statistic coming from?

Dr. Woodrow C. Monte doesn't think Methonal in Aspartame is safe. In his article Is your Diet Sweetener killing you? he states:

"Methanol - Trojan Horse: Why is methanol dangerous? Inside cells, methanol is converted to formaldehyde, an undetectable toxin and recognized cancer causing agent of the highest order (Group I). Even when formaldehyde is injected directly into a living human, it turns into formal hydrate, a very aggressive molecule that instantly attaches to any protein molecule which it makes contact. The formaldehyde molecule then completely disappears within the cover of the much larger protein. No diagnostic procedures, can detect a protein molecule so changed, yet the damaged molecule, loses function."

and also:

"If formaldehyde was proved the cause of the symptoms and death from methanol poisoning, (the opinion held by the scientific community at that time), formaldehyde?s inability to be detected would put a quick end to any hope for the approval of Aspartame. Millions of dollars bought many scientific papers, few indicating the research therein was ?contracted? by the manufacturers of the product. This ?research? is now forever embedded in the scientific literature. Scientists who were on the corporate dole are now considered ?experts? in the field of methanol safety."

The statistic (if it qualifies for such a lofty title is relates from the lower limits of safe human exposure published by varierty of international sources (they all agree is around 200-500mg per kg).

I took it from the British Medical Journal but simplified it from 600-1700 cans as I didn't want to be seen as overstated how safe aspartame is.

Dr Monte's thoughts didn't even require searching to appear wrong, I know there are many ways to detect formaldehyde, methanol and there metabolites in humans and everywhere else.
It's chemistry that has been around a while.

As for his comments on the FDA, I can't address them.
I think very few people would be able to, and I have no reason to believe Dr Monte is one of them.

If you (or him for that matter) wants me to give me something specific (a undeclared conflict of interest, a charge of researh misconduct) then I might have something to say.

Otherwise we are left as we were, this is large well conducted study which is raises a new unprecedented concern about a food aditive.

There is no plausable mechanism for this.
The research can not demonstrate causation.
It stands alone in a sea of contradictory studies.

The authors recognise this and call for further work before policy change be considered.
Why don't you?

23 years ago, my Organic Chemistry Prof at University told me to avoid aspartame like the plague. I always have. It's not a very scientific reason, but I'll never touch it and will never allow my children to have it.

I don't understand why those warnings against possible dangers have a, presumably negative, agenda? Is there any commercial benefit for them? The conclusion of the researchers is pretty much the same as every study I have ever read - more research is needed. But why wait? Not having aspartame is not going to harm you. Having it possibly will.

"The conclusion of the researchers is pretty much the same as every study I have ever read - more research is needed. But why wait? Not having aspartame is not going to harm you. Having it possibly will."

Well, I can't speak to what studies you have been reading.
But I don't think it's fair to say that all studies say that.

And it's worth bearing in mind that this study is only calling for more research in this one area, as we have relatively little data at present and what we have doesn't tie in with the rest of the aspartame research base.

As to why we should even consider having aspartame available as an option to people, that's a reasonable question.
Here's my take on it.

Aspartame is mostly, but not exclusively used as a sugar replacement.

Sugar is high in calories, has a poor gylcaemic profile, provide little saitity, damages teeth and gums and is associated with obesity.

Most of these are well known and well accepted harms.

The idea of replacing this component with one with fewer adverse effects would be advantageous.

Aspartame, and other artificial sweeteners, are a response to this.
Although it would be disengenuous of me not to suggest a profit motivation is present as well.

Have any of those benefits panned out?

Aspartame doesn't seem to reduce calorific intake as much as was hoped (the sweetness doesn't enable our taste buds to adapt to a lower sugar diet) but it does have an effect in certain populations.

It has very obvious benefits with regards to diabetes.

Although aspartame did enable drinks manufacturers to reduce the acidity of their drinks, most did not. This seems to be a result of public feedback. Turns out we, as a species, prefer that level of acidity in our soft drinks.

So a better question than why drink aspartame is why drink aspartame over sugar.

And there are a bunch of decent reasons.
And an individual should make up their own mind.
On the best evidence available.

Not becuase someone with an agenda has scared them with errors or lies.

The use of low calorie sweeteners has been very well studied both in humans and in animals. This research has shown no adverse effects on the mother or developing baby related to the use of low calorie sweeteners.

Before being authorised for use in food and drinks, all low-calorie sweeteners must undergo a range of safety evaluations by independent national and international scientific expert committees, including the Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives of the United Nations Food & Agriculture Organisation and the World Health Organisation (JECFA) at international level, and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) at European level. These evaluations take into account potentially sensitive groups such as pregnant women, infants and children.

There are many factors that increase the risk of premature births, such as smoking, diabetes, poor nutrition, anaemia, stress, depression and many more. They include overweight and obesity.

By providing sweetness without calories, sweeteners can make a useful contribution to a healthy, calorie-controlled diet.

For more information on low calorie sweeteners, please visit the website of the International Sweeteners Association (ISA): www.sweeteners.org