Aspartame is perfectly safe used as directed as judged by regulatory authorities worldwide.
ALL issues with aspartame arise, not from any aspartame safety issue, but from heightened PERSONAL sensitivities caused by a deficiency of the vitamin folic acid, by genetic folate enzyme differences (called polymorphisms that require more folate for the same function), by related methyl cycle issues like low B12, by high blood homocysteine, by ethanol abuse and by still other related issues possibly including childhood insect stings that might make a person frankly allergic. Sensitive people should visit with his (her) physician about their sensitivity, because those reporting sensitivity to aspartame may be at substantial risk of disease and cancer due to the above mentioned, referenced issues that have nothing to do with aspartame. Moreover, folate and these related issues, not aspartame, are linkable directly to nearly all 92 claimed side-effects of aspartame.
This whole issue is much like the proverbial camel already burdened by the many above-cited issues; the otherwise insignificant aspartame compares similarly to the straw that broke the camel’s back. No reasonable person would call that straw the damaging offender, but those fostering this conspiracy theory do just that. The concerned reader must realize that this long-failed aspartame internet conspiracy theory is fostered by Roberts, Blaylock, Mercola and others; commentary on these three is warranted. None are trained in pharmacology-toxicology and it shows. Consider critic Roberts, who has done a bunch of studies suggesting some people have reactions to aspartame that disappear when aspartame is no longer used. Unfortunately, he has never done any studies that even considered these vitamin and related issues I mentioned earlier. Most of Roberts criticisms are anecdotal letters to the editor that rarely receive peer review. But consider this one recent example, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/17534100. While Roberts (2007) presents the only claimed association between aspartame and thrombocytopenia. Analysis (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez) of “folate deficiency, thrombocytopenia” (without quotes) revealed over 100 such citations for folate deficiency (on March 27, 2009). His one report stands against over 100 linking this issue to folate deficiency. That would suggest he has a 99 in 100 chance of being wrong and that this is but another personal sensitivity issue unrelated to aspartame safety.
Critic Blaylock has never published anything in the primary literature about aspartame, but he writes books on this subject, based on anecdotal evidence from twenty years ago, before folate fortification became mandatory in 1998.
Mercola recently presented his case against aspartame at the Huffington Post only to be reprimanded by some serious studied opposition, see http://whatdoesthesciencesay.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/extraordinaryclaimsaboutaspartameinthehuffingtonpost.pdf. Readers should also consider Mercola's credibility http://www.quackwatch.com/11Ind/mercola.html and that same credibility issue extends to all those fostering this conspiracy theory.
John E. Garst, Ph.D. (Medicinal Chemistry, Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Nutrition)
Aspartame is perfectly safe used as directed as judged by regulatory authorities worldwide.
ReplyDeleteALL issues with aspartame arise, not from any aspartame safety issue, but from heightened PERSONAL sensitivities caused by a deficiency of the vitamin folic acid, by genetic folate enzyme differences (called polymorphisms that require more folate for the same function), by related methyl cycle issues like low B12, by high blood homocysteine, by ethanol abuse and by still other related issues possibly including childhood insect stings that might make a person frankly allergic. Sensitive people should visit with his (her) physician about their sensitivity, because those reporting sensitivity to aspartame may be at substantial risk of disease and cancer due to the above mentioned, referenced issues that have nothing to do with aspartame. Moreover, folate and these related issues, not aspartame, are linkable directly to nearly all 92 claimed side-effects of aspartame.
This whole issue is much like the proverbial camel already burdened by the many above-cited issues; the otherwise insignificant aspartame compares similarly to the straw that broke the camel’s back. No reasonable person would call that straw the damaging offender, but those fostering this conspiracy theory do just that. The concerned reader must realize that this long-failed aspartame internet conspiracy theory is fostered by Roberts, Blaylock, Mercola and others; commentary on these three is warranted. None are trained in pharmacology-toxicology and it shows. Consider critic Roberts, who has done a bunch of studies suggesting some people have reactions to aspartame that disappear when aspartame is no longer used. Unfortunately, he has never done any studies that even considered these vitamin and related issues I mentioned earlier. Most of Roberts criticisms are anecdotal letters to the editor that rarely receive peer review. But consider this one recent example, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/17534100. While Roberts (2007) presents the only claimed association between aspartame and thrombocytopenia. Analysis (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez) of “folate deficiency, thrombocytopenia” (without quotes) revealed over 100 such citations for folate deficiency (on March 27, 2009). His one report stands against over 100 linking this issue to folate deficiency. That would suggest he has a 99 in 100 chance of being wrong and that this is but another personal sensitivity issue unrelated to aspartame safety.
Critic Blaylock has never published anything in the primary literature about aspartame, but he writes books on this subject, based on anecdotal evidence from twenty years ago, before folate fortification became mandatory in 1998.
Mercola recently presented his case against aspartame at the Huffington Post only to be reprimanded by some serious studied opposition, see http://whatdoesthesciencesay.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/extraordinaryclaimsaboutaspartameinthehuffingtonpost.pdf. Readers should also consider Mercola's credibility http://www.quackwatch.com/11Ind/mercola.html and that same credibility issue extends to all those fostering this conspiracy theory.
John E. Garst, Ph.D. (Medicinal Chemistry, Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Nutrition)