No, It’s For Real: Aspartame Causes Cancer

Several people have "figured" ow many cans of soda an individual would need to drink to ingest the same amount of aspartame that was dispensed to the rats. Perhaps you need to consider the vast other thousands of products that you may also be ingesting aspartame. It is in gum, yogurt, lollipops, ice cream, toothpaste, lip balm, medications, cakes, biscuits, popsicles, mouthwash, cereal, diet foods,jams and jellies... the list goes on and on. It is estimated that there are 9000 products that contain aspartame. Soda may be the least of your worries.
In regards to the links to the national institute on cancer. I urge you to not take the word of the government organizations that tell us what drugs, foods, and products are safe. Sadly, the NIC and ACI have their own profiteering agendas. I would urge you to research where their funds come from and who they really work for. It is my opinion that they dont work for the American Consumer, keeping us acurately informed in an effort to keep us healthy and out of harms way. I agree it would be wonderful to say: "the national cancer institue says it is safe, so it must be safe". But, it just isn't so in a world where money and greed often are elevated to a place far above truth. Question everything and take the time to do your own research in the quest for truth and knowledge. Its your health that is on the line.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/Politics/cancer...>

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/AspartameQandA

You can check on the National Cancer Institutes website (www.cancer.gov), there is no link between cancer and sweeteners such as Aspartame and Acesulfame Potassium. Or you can call their 800 number at 1-800-4CANCER.

The American Cancer society, the FDA, the World Health Organization, and the Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives of the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization.

While I'm skeptical of the FDA sometimes, all of these organizations have said that aspartame shows no significant link towards causing cancer.

With that said it's like everything else. I've heard that baked bread, Pizza, and anything and everything causes cancer. Like many other people have said...maybe so maybe not. I wouldn't live my life by it, but at the same time I wouldn't go out of my way to consume as much aspartame as possible.

Also, it can cause or mimic some diseases in people with its side effects. The important thing to remember is the "exception to the rule" rule of thumb. Just b/c someone knows someone who's had something caused by aspartame doesn't mean this correlates to the entire population of people who intake aspartame. There are always exceptions to the rule.

Check this out. Warning: photos are very graphic.

http;//myaspartameexperiment.com

Did you know you can kill yourself by drinking too much
dihydrogen monoxide? A woman accidentally killed herself
during a contest recently. The point of the contest? To see
how much of this dangerous poison she could drink. If only the
radio station that sponsored the contest knew how dangerous
this stuff was before they ran this contest. Maybe that woman
would still be alive today. It's probably the FDA's fault. Or Donald Rumsfeld's. Or Mickey Mouse's. I heard Kermit the Frog had a hand in it, too. We need to get those money grubbing bastards before they kill any more!!!

POP QUIZ QUESTION #1 (from one of Dr. Martini's old med school quizzes) --

Here's a list of natural compounds:

a) tobacco
b) strychnine
c) hemlock
d) seawater
e) mouse droppings

For five points, tell me which one(s) are safe to consume.

Today's Helpful Hint:

-- Dr. Gibson

 "Someday we'll find it, the Rainbow Connection, Don Rumsfeld, 
  the FDA, and me."

  -- Kermit T. Frog, as heard when you play the soundtrack 
     to 'The Great Muppet Caper' backwards.

The Ramazzini Study showed conclusively aspartame is a multipotential carcinogen. The second Ramazzini Study released in 2007 showed it only takes a small amount to cause cancer and if the baby survives from a pregnant woman using it the baby can grow up and have cancer. Aspartame is an abortifacient and teratogen.

But this has always been known by the FDA. Their own FDA toxicologist, Dr. Adrian Gross, testified on August 1, 1985, Senate, that aspartame violated the Delaney Amendment which forbids approving anything you know will cause cancer, because it caused brain tumors and brain cancer. The Bressler Report, FDA audit on www.dorway.com shows how Searle, original manufacturer, tried to keep it from the FDA. FDA asked for their indictment but both US Prosecutors hired on with the defense team and the statute of limitations expired. Still the FDA revoked the petition for approval (www.mpwhi.com). See the aspartame documentary, Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World, www.soundandfury.tv where James Turner, Atty, explains how Don Rumsfeld got it on the market when the FDA said "NO"! But aspartame does more than cause cancer. It has an entire medical text: Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic, www.sunsentpress.com by H. J. Robert, M.D., over 1000 pages of the horrors caused by aspartame. Also Russell Blaylock, M.D., www.russellblaylockmd.com wrote Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills, His CD, The Truth About Aspartame explains the Ramazzini Study in detail eand how industry's rebuttal failed. The truth is out.

Betty Martini, D.Hum, Founder
Mission Possible Intl
bettym19@mindspring.com

varrolcn

Hi All,

I was an avid 6-12 can a day Diet Coke drinker. I didn't think it was a problem until every afternoon I would go into fits of rage, have hypoglycemic attacks and when I tried to stop drinking it, I would have withdrawal symptoms, cravings etc. Seriously it took 2 weeks for me to be completely "off" the Diet Coke without obsessing over not having one. I have been drinking the stuff pretty steady since the 80's and I would rebuff anyone that said it was not good.

It was worse than when I stopped smoking (which I did cold turkey)8 years ago. This stuff is poison. It is derived from rat poison. Can't give specifics, but there are 3 class action suits pending in California for kids that have dropped dead after being in a sports game and had sudden heart attack. Aspartame can cause the blood vessels to constrict and cause the heart to stop. Monsanto and Dupont and other big name companies have been named in the suits.

Aspartame can mimic several diseases ie, Multiple sclerosis, diabetes, parkinsons, fibromyalgia, migraines, etc. I have had clients that were avid coke drinkers who suffered from fibromyalgia and migraines and after just a couple of sessions of CST and stopping the diet drinks, the migraines stopped along with the other symptoms.

It is not just a cancer causing drug, it can cause sudden death because aspartame converts to formaldehyde when it gets hot. If you are coke or pepsi drinker, have you ever noticed that sometimes it just doesn't taste right? it has probably been out in the heat and has converted to toxins. Not to mention the aluminimum of the cans, they actually disintegrate when they have been sitting for a long time and leach into the soda, so now you have aspartame/formaldehyde and aluminum...oooohhhh what a combo.

So I am convert...thanks for letting me share. Great site by the way!

Everything that is not natural causes cancer. I don't know why they don't stop inventing warm water once for all. And then they put millions into stupid researches. And they spend millions to discover that french fries causes cancer, than they spend another millions to discover that some cookies causes cancer. I'm sick of all smart asses. I guess that artificial food ate everyones brains already.

Forgive me for being confused. This study has as its minimum level 20 mg/kg of body weight. To meet even their minimum levels, I would have to drink 35 glasses of Coke Zero everyday. (58mg/glass @ 100 kg)

I agree aspartame probably causes cancer in large amounts, but anything does if taken in excess. So the comment "at or below the amounts approved for human consumption" in the above article is seriously misleading.

Even the smallest dosage in the study is close to an order of magnitude above what even a heavy diet soda drinker would consume in a day. For myself, I am concerned, but I also enjoy the experience, so I'm not inclined to change just because of FUD.

Has anyone actually done a study at a realistic 3mg/kg? Link please. I'd honestly like to know.

Is Splenda Really As Safe As They Claim It to Be?

As of 2006, only six human trials have been published on Splenda (sucralose). Of these six trials, only two of the trials were completed and published before the FDA approved sucralose for human consumption. The two published trials had a grand total of 36 total human subjects.

36 people sure doesn't sound like many, but wait, it gets worse, only 23 total were actually given sucralose for testing and here is the real killer:

The longest trial at this time had lasted only four days and looked at sucralose in relation to tooth decay, not human tolerance.

Why Do You Need to Know About Splenda?

Splenda, best known for its marketing logo, "made from sugar so it tastes like sugar,' has taken the sweetener industry by storm. Splenda has become the nations number one selling artificial sweetener in a very short period of time.

Between 2000 and 2004, the percentage of US households using Splenda products jumped from 3 to 20 percent. In a one year period, Splenda sales topped $177 million compared with $62 million spent on aspartame-based Equal and $52 million on saccharin-based Sweet 'N Low.

McNeil Nutritionals, in their marketing pitch for Splenda emphasizes that Splenda has endured some of the most rigorous testing to date for any food additive. Enough so to convince the average consumer that it is in fact safe. They claim that over 100 studies have been conducted on Splenda. What they don't tell you is that most of the studies are on animals.

Additional Concerns About Splenda Studies

There have been no long-term human toxicity studies published until after the FDA approved sucralose for human consumption. Following FDA approval a human toxicity trial was conducted, but lasted only three months, hardly the length of time most Splenda users plan to consume sucralose. No studies have ever been done on children or pregnant women.

Much of the controversy surrounding Splenda does not focus just on its safety, but rather on its false advertising claims. The competition among sweeteners is anything but sweet. The sugar industry is currently suing McNeil Nutritionals for implying that Splenda is a natural form of sugar with no calories.

Is It REALLY Sugar?

There is no question that sucralose starts off as a sugar molecule, it is what goes on in the factory that is concerning. Sucralose is a synthetic chemical that was originally cooked up in a laboratory. In the five step patented process of making sucralose, three chlorine molecules are added to a sucrose or sugar molecule. A sucrose molecule is a disaccharide that contains two single sugars bound together; glucose and fructose.

The chemical process to make sucralose alters the chemical composition of the sugar so much that it is somehow converted to a fructo-galactose molecule. This type of sugar molecule does not occur in nature and therefore your body does not possess the ability to properly metabolize it. As a result of this "unique" biochemical make-up, McNeil Nutritionals makes it's claim that Splenda is not digested or metabolized by the body, making it have zero calories.

It is not that Splenda is naturally zero calories. If your body had the capacity to metabolize it then it would no longer has zero calories.

How Much Splenda is Left In Your Body After You Eat It?

If you look at the research (which is primarily extrapolated form animal studies) you will see that in fact 15% of sucralose is absorbed into your digestive system and ultimately is stored in your body. To reach a number such as 15% means some people absorb more and some people absorb less. In one human study, one of the eight participants did not excrete any sucralose even after 3 days. Clearly his body was absorbing and metabolizing this chemical. That is what our bodies are supposed to do.

The bottom line is that we all have our own unique biochemical make-up. Some of you will absorb and metabolize more than others. If you are healthy and your digestive system works well, you may be at higher risk for breaking down this product in your stomach and intestines. Please understand that it is impossible for the manufacturers of Splenda to make any guarantees based on their limited animal data.

If you feel that Splenda affects you adversely, it is valid. Don't let someone convince you that it is all in your head. You know your body better than anyone else.

How to Determine if Splenda is Harming You

The best way to determine if Splenda or sucralose is affecting you is to perform an elimination/challenge with it. First eliminate it and other artificial sweeteners from your diet completely for a period of one to two weeks. After this period reintroduce it in sufficient quantity.

For example, use it in your beverage in the morning, and eat at least two sucralose containing products the remainder of the day. On this day, avoid other artificial sweeteners so that you are able to differentiate which one may be causing a problem for you. Do this for a period of one to three days. Take notice of how your body is feeling, particularly if it feels different than when you were artificial sweetener free.

Splenda May Still Be Harming You

If you complete the elimination/challenge trial described above and do not notice any changes then it appears you are able to tolerate Splenda acutely. However, please understand that you are not out of the woods yet.

The entire issue of long-term safety has never been established. Let's look at the facts again:

*

  There have only been six human trials to date
*

  The longest trial lasted three months
* At LEAST 15% of Splenda is not excreted from your body in a timely manner

Considering that Splenda bears more chemical similarity to DDT than it does to sugar, are you willing to bet your health on this data? Remember that fat soluble substances, such as DDT, can remain in your fat for decades and devastate your health.

If the above facts don't concern because you believe the FDA would not ever allow a toxic substance into the market then read on.

Do You Really Believe These People Are Going to Protect You?

Please consider that the only organizations between you and potentially toxic side effects are the FDA and the manufacturers of sucralose (Tate & Lyle) and of Splenda (McNeil Nutritionals).

The FDA has a long standing history of ineffective screening and rampant conflict of interests as demonstrated in their inability to identify Vioxx as too dangerous to be on the market. This mistake costs 55,000 people their lives.

Now the point I want you to understand here, because it is really important, is that Splenda is not a drug and is only a food additive. As such the number of studies required to receive FDA approval is substantially less than drug. Vioxx had an order of magnitude of more comprehensive clinical trials than Splenda ever did, and despite this rigorous approval process it still killed 55,000 people.

So, now you have the primary concerns I have about Splenda and the choices is yours.

Read Splenda Horror Stories

We have more people on our site that have reported adverse reaction to Splenda than were formally studied in the research submitted for FDA approval. It would seem this collection of data is in some ways superior to the data submitted to the FDA for Splenda approval.

You can help us continue our Splenda research by supplying us with your own experience. If you or anyone you know have had an adverse reaction to Splenda or sucralose containing products please tell us your story.

Dr. Mercola's Comment:

Don't let these large companies fool you. There is no magic alternative to sugar when it comes to sweeteners. You simply can not have your cake and eat it too when it comes to this area. It is far too early to tell, as not enough people have consumed this product to observe large numbers of adverse effects.

However, I have had a number of patients in our Wellness Center who have had some severe migraines and even seizures possibly from consuming this product.

My advice?

AVOID Sucralose.

I am fond of telling people that if something tastes sweet you probably should spit it out as it is not likely to be to good for you. This of course, is a humorous exaggeration, but for most people who struggle with chronic illness, it is likely to be a helpful guide.

PLEASE note this article is being written in 2000. This is one of the first comprehensive clear investigative reports and warnings on sucralose on the Internet.

Hey "geniuses". I happen to know a few people who have had serious adverse reactions to Aspartame. Sure, one could attempt to dismiss this as some sort of intolerance. I mean, look at all the people with bad reactions to dairy products... but wait! Perhaps people aren't designed to consume dairy, & some people are just more prone to the obvious reactions than others! But then, of course, there's the WHEAT allergy thing. Wheat allergies have been proven to be on the rise. But then so has the amounts of EXTRA gluten added to food products. I think I see a pattern here. Perhaps people shouldn't eat what people aren't designed to properly digest. Also, LABS AND FOOD DON'T MIX. And to anyone who truly believes that there is such a thing as an artificial sweetener that is safe for human consumption, I have a nice BRIDGE I'd like to sell you.

Some people need to do their research. The only reason the FDA approves any of these weird poisonous lab concoctions is that there are extensive conflicts of interest within the FDA. These artificial so-called 'food' products only get approved because MONEY TALKS! If it's artificial, I can assure you it is unfit as food. How many things that the FDA approved have been recalled in the past? After people DIED? More than a few. Do you want to know about the FDA? Watch "The Future of Food" DVD. The FDA cannot be trusted.

rumor: mouse urine is more concentrated than human urine. This concentration allows sharp pointy aspartame crystals to grow in mouse bladders. The sharp pointy crystals prod cells and cause mutation. The mutates cells spread.
My point: Humans are different than mice in this important way.

The CureHunter summary on Aspartame lists a few studies, didnt realize we were talking about nutrasweet...:
http://www.curehunter.com/public/keywordSummary...>

Aspartame - Rumsfeld's Bioweapon Legacy

Among the many ironies of our modern world is that Gerald Ford awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom-America,s highest civilian honor-to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on January 19, 1977. Just a few weeks later on March 8, Rumsfeld became the CEO of G.D. Searle to take point on a mission to force the Food and Drug Administration to approve for human consumption a known carcinogen and neurotoxic poison.

Do a Web search on the title if you want to know more....

Unfortunately, with these kind of questions there'll never be a conclusive study.

The artificial sweeteners are a very high profit industry. As such, a lot of money goes to make sure that a company's products are sold. As a layman you have no idea which of the scientific studies were constructed to fit Ajinomoto's idea of truth, Tate & Lyle's or any of the other incumbents.

Think of any controversy which is highly profitable to at lest one side, and you'll discover scientific papers "proving" either side. Tobacco, cellphone use, greenhouse gasses. When money is involved, it's difficult to find an objective opinion just by reading the media. Not unless you're personally involved.

-- Arik

Almost anything in excess promotes neoplasms!

No Aspartamine does not cause cancer to any significant extent and here's why: If it did, the epidemiologists would have caught it. There are MILLIONS of people ingesting significant amounts of aspartamine daily, the effects of it would be totally obvious if it caused cancer.

Bob,

But it doesn't go up from there. It goes down. Then up. That means there's no dose response, meaning there is likely no relation to the product in question.

For those folks who don't want to follow the link, let me finish the table that Bob didn't write out:

34% 10,000 mg/kg
38% 50,000 mg/kg
43% 100,000 mg/kg

Granted, I'm not a toxicologist. But I think there's no good reason to think that thye've proven anything one way or the other.

Just quickly perusing the original paper - there isn't a dosage response. I.e. you see higher cancers at some doses and lower at others. Even at their highest doses - where they're serving the equivalent of what would be 3/4 of a lb of pure aspartame to a 175lb guy, they're still seeing no dose response. That suggests their results are due to random variation, not due to aspartame being a causal agent. Their results are only significant to a p < 0.05. Meaning there's a decent chance that this is merely random variation.

They might be right, but they certainly haven't proven anything...

@Craig

What I'm saying is that many are saying the Italian study is solid, but that it doesn't prove that aspartame is damaging to humans.

ugg message board ate my formatting, lets try again:

Tumor % - aspartame dose

35% 0 mg/kg (control group)

29% 4 mg/kg

32% 20 mg/kg

40% 100 mg/kg (and it only increases from here)

Umm, I'm not a doctor or anything, but I just read the source article, and the control group of lab rats had a tumor rate of 35.3%

Tumor % - aspartame dose
35% 0 mg/kg (control group)
29% 4 mg/kg
32% 20 mg/kg
40% 100 mg/kg (and it only increases from here)

I weigh 110 kg, at 20 mg/kg, I would have to drink over 20 diet soda's per day to equal what the rats consumed. While someone who weighs 70 kg would still have to drink over a dozen soda's. An interesting note, is that the rats in the 2 groups that only consumed a little aspartame actually had a lower tumor rate than any other group. Perhaps that is because they had the lowest caloric intake? Just a thought.

BTW: I totally agree that aspartame isn't good for you, but I hate seeing things presented without appropriate context.

"So their entire argument goes something like this: “Sure it’s proven to cause all sorts of cancer in animals at the same levels approved for humans — nobody disputes that — but people are different than animals”."

After that demonstration, I don't think anyone would be interested in having you summarize their positions for them. Nobody disputes that? I'm sure...

This all ignores the overriding threat of DHMO. For shame.

http://www.dhmo.org/

The results for saccharin are far from inconclusive. As the only artificial sweetener on the market with a lot of long term data (especially from heavy use diabetics over the last several decades), this is the only sweetener one can trust to be safe. The animal model studies that suggested a possible risk turned out to be a false alarm for humans.

Aspartame looks far worse, and Splenda (sucralose) is a still a complete unknown. Stevia is good, but I'm a little skeptical of all the processing it is going through to remove the bitter compounds.

Actually the results for saccharin are ALSO totally inconclusive !!!