The only studies that have supported the dangers of aspartame are the Ramazzini studies. They have concluded that aspartame causes malignancies in rats and would be a potential carcinogen in humans, even at normal doses. Despite their findings, the FDA discredited their research for a numerous amount of flaws in their research such as comparing cancer rates of older aspartame-consuming rats to younger control rats, unspecified composition of the rats’ diets and method of adding aspartame, unspecified aspartame storage conditions, lack of animal randomization, overcrowding and a high incidence of possibly carcinogenic infections and the U.S. National Toxicology Program's finding that the European Ramazzini Foundation had misdiagnosed hyperplasias as malignancies. However many anti aspartame activists still hold these studies to be true and the FDA’s studies to be false. This is despite the fact that aspartame has been the most rigorously studied food in their history. Aspartame was approved by experts in the United Nations of Food and Agriculture and the World Health Organization, as well as regulatory agencies in more than 100 other countries. In addition, more than 100 studies were conducted in animals and humans, including adults, children, lactating women, people with diabetes, obesity and special genetic conditions. Until a proper study is conducted that proves the dangers of aspartame, aspartame is safe.
I am open to any arguments stating the dangers of aspartame and may be willing to change my mind if you guys can show me proper sources of evidence.
http://aspartame.mercola.com/
ReplyDeleteNote the disclaimer at the bottom. Btw, I don't support the article. Read like a paragraph and could only think of one word. Rhymes with SnullSpit
Hmmm, I am only interested as to why you generally believe everything natural is best. I agree with you that its best to try to avoid relying on drugs in cases where the body's natural defense will suffice. But in something so clear cut as zero calories over 160 calories, the better option seems obvious.
ReplyDeleteWell Anthony as I said in my blog I just feel that something that is natural without anything artificial will be better for us because it is natural and I would think our bodies wouild be able to digest it better. But that was just a hypothesis, I have nothing to back it up just as the people who say aspartame is bad for you. It has been tested rigorously and they have found nothing wrong with it.
ReplyDeleteWell Odunayo there was zero research conducted here or at least credible research in which this man proves what aspartame causes. Would I be suprised if what he was saying was true, no, but without conducting the proper reasearch you cannopt say that aspartame is bad. The FDA did conduct rigorous tests and found nothing wrong. Also he stated that excessive amounts of aspartae causes problems and excessive amounts of anything is bad for someone.
ReplyDeleteWait Anthony are you asking why many people think aspartame is bad?
ReplyDeleteI think this blog is helpful because I am a diet coke drinker, artificial or not I'm a fan, but I was always worried that aspartame would cause problems in my body, but now I can drink it without worrying.
ReplyDeleteFor now at least
ReplyDeleteI think the problem is that the FDA is so trusted. Its great that a burea is looking out for the health of the community, but one group researching something is not enough to fully understand the consequences, capabilities, etc. One thing that I would like to share is that prior to high school I had often severe head aches called migraines. My family has low iron, so we often contributed the head aches to that. However, when my docter cut aspartame out of my diet completely, I no longer had the head aches. Since then I have only had one significant migraine episode: it was after drinking a diet snapple containing aspartame. Is this evidence? no. But it works for me.
ReplyDelete