What is Digg?267 Comments
- StayPuft21, on 10/11/2007, -9/+73Do some math. 20mg/kg is 1400mg DAILY for life. A can of Coke Zero has 85mg.
.: if you drink 16 diet sodas a day, every day, perhaps you should be worried. - FulcrumVitesse, on 10/11/2007, -2/+63Very little is known about the long-term effects of most food additives, and artificial sweeteners are often pretty complex chemicals. Good to see some research being done along these lines.
- wallitron, on 10/11/2007, -1/+37Phew, luckily for me I've cut down to only 15 a day
- empressofmetal, on 10/11/2007, -6/+40I gotta get off these sweetener. Even if they don't cause cancer, there's no way they can be good for you. But as of now, I'm hooked on the diet soda.
- bobfoster, on 10/11/2007, -9/+42This study was discounted by the FDA because researchers would not share data and had insufficient controls.
http://blog.naturalstandard.com/natural_standard_blog/2007/05/fda_safety_of_a.html
The same group has just reported new results, as reported here.
http://www.cspinet.org/new/200706251.html
I'm sure the industry lobbyists are circling the wagons. - LucasVB, on 10/11/2007, -2/+34In other news, it has recently been discovered that research causes cancer in rats.
- DeskFlyer, on 10/11/2007, -5/+32How dare they impurify our precious bodily fluids!
- LakeshoreBaby, on 10/11/2007, -5/+29For the first time!!???? Oh lord, give me a break!
- SupaDawg, on 10/11/2007, -1/+21It's called Moderation folks.
Nothing is good for you if you take in excess amounts of it. We've known that for years. Hell, even the high sugar content in fruit can be harmful if you eat too much. The key is moderation. A couple diet cokes a week isn't going to cause cancer any more than a couple normal cokes will cause diabetes.
That said, if you're one of those stupid pricks buying double gulps of the stuff you have it coming to you. - Conwaysb0718, on 10/11/2007, -6/+23That is how I likes my womens, skinny and terminal.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -4/+21First you make me drink the diet coke because my fat ass will kill me, then the damn diet coke is killing me -- NO! You will not make put down the remote and go jogging.
- paulmike3, on 10/11/2007, -1/+17Agreed. I've heard this for years.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -16/+31You'd have to eat pounds of that ***** every day to get cancer.
- Babykitkat, on 10/11/2007, -7/+21Donald Rumsfeld is making alot of moneys off this poison
Consumer Attorney James Turner talks about how Donald Rumsfeld disregarded safety issues and used his political muscle to get Aspartame approved
http://www.aspartamekills.com/
http://www.herbalhealer.com/aspartame.html
http://www.mercola.com/article/aspartame/hidden_dangers.htm - atdigg, on 10/11/2007, -15/+28From what I understand it causes tumors in rats however the mechanism of creating tumors doesn't apply to humans (different organisms react differently to some substances)
- luet, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13That's it. I'm going to stop drinking pop/soda altogether now.
- AgentMull, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, communist subversion, and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+12I agree. I tried to find the entire paper but couldn't find any real data on their results. Besides that point, it is a good step at figuring out is aspartame really is a carcinogen or not. However, be aware that this was done in rats and there are physiologic differences.
- sjl127, on 10/11/2007, -7/+16Everything is dangerous - even water. It kills many each year - it's called 'drowning.'
- Fordi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9All food is chemical. Our bodies are chemical engines. All things are made of chemical components.
Meanwhile, reasonably innocuous salt is an inorganic compound, while aspartame is decidedly an organic compound.
Look, the problem with processed foods is not what you think it is; processed food is maximized for flavor and caloric content, ignoring the other compounds that your body has adapted to make use of. Phytic acid*, for example, is sorely missing in white flour; as a result, those who only eat things made with white flour end up with a higher risk of cholesterol issues.
The fact is that food scientists simply don't know enough about the human system to be relied upon as your only source of food. That's not to say you can never have a twinkie - have a twinkie once in a while. Just don't make a meal of them. Everything in moderation, including moderation.
*Phytic Acid is a chelating agent present in wheat bran that fits into your system's calcium balance. The doses of it you get in, say, whole wheat bread, are enough to remove the loose calcium in your blood that would otherwise join with cholesterol to form into plaque. Too much of it, on the other hand, will first eat away at your gingiva, then start pulling the calcium from your bones. - MrFlesh, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10Yes rats have nothing in common with humans that's why we don't use them in any of our scientific studies.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9My understanding is that its metabolic byproducts include methanol - which is neurotoxic and kills retinal cells - and formaldehyde, which is poisonous. I hope you are merely misinformed and not a paid shill for somebody. There is a ton of literature, and articles, identifying the dangers of aspartame. Donald Rumsfeld, when CEO of Serles, rammed aspartame through the FDA using political connections despite evidence it was dangerous.
- DynamiteMonkey, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9Sola Dosis Facit Venenum - Only the dose makes the poison.
Many studies that find carcinogenicity use amounts which would be impossible to match daily. Products have been considered unsafe because of studies suggesting if you took in 70 cups of X beverage a day you might have a slightly higher chance of getting cancer...
That said, a lot of these sweetener replacement chemicals have been shown to be dangerous and some have been (imo) permitted to pass due to the insanely LARGE market for them. It's only worth the risk if you're diabetic.
Diet Soda = does not compute. - CaptShmo, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8dugg for strangelove reference
- jb55, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/aspartame.asp
- Fordi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Actually, the risk factors are calculated by those doses. Reduce the doses, reduce the risk, but you could have one grain of aspartame a year and it's still possible for it to generate a cancer cell - just not bloody likely, which is even the case for that 16 diet coke a day habit.
Everything is a carcinogen, by the loose definitions that have been used to condemn foodstuffs. I swear to god these studies exist just so that insurance companies have more questions to ask you on your health insurance application. - Frnnkdlxx, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8Welcome to America
Been to McDonalds yet? - londubh, on 10/11/2007, -6/+12Donald Rumsfeld was responsible for shoving that through the approval process. http://www.rense.com/general67/rum.htm
- StillWater, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9This article appears to be from March 2006? If this is as significant as it seems to be then why is it just now coming to light?
- HUKI365, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Wow, a REAL source for once.
- celerityfm, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5A website that sources their arguments very well.
- Sornos, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8Exactly, most of these "X gives you cancer" are from studies of giving an animal test subject massive does of the chemical in question. It does give you cancer, but only in monstrous doses.
- bobonut, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6A typical can of diet soda (not everyone drinks Coke Zero) has 180 mg of Aspartame, also as someone else mentioned many other products such as gum, candy, and even some medicines also use aspartame. Believe it or not, surveys indicate some adults do consume around 20 cans of diet soda per day which would certainly exceed this. All this aside, this study has been addressed by the National Cancer Institute: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/AspartameQandA
Human studies, albeit obviously observational rather than randomized experiments, appear to vindicate the substance. One odd note that struck me about the initial study was the observation of a statistically significant rise in multiple types of cancer but "No substantial difference in survival was observed among the groups". - nugx, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8What do you mean 'NOW'? Aspartame has been known to cause Cancer in lab animals at large doses for YEARS...
- otakushark, on 10/11/2007, -1/+530 cans x 12oz = 360oz = 2.8 gallons of soda a day? Sorry, I have a very hard time believing that.
- willis77, on 10/11/2007, -7/+11... in rats.
- Archos, on 10/11/2007, -20/+24Donald Rumsfeld brought these aspartame poison on the market. Watch the documentary Sweet Misery - A Poisoned World: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-566922170441334340
- Fordi, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Actually, you are both partially correct. Aspartame degrades into aspartic acid and phenylalanine at varying rates depending on its temperature and relative PH. However, at room temperature, in the presence of certain aromatic compounds (ie: flavorants), one of aspartames components can undergo a Maillard reaction with the aldehyde groups found in the aromatic.
Meanwhile, during human digestion, aspartame breaks down into several residual chemicals, including aspartic acid, phenylalanine, and methanol. The quantities of this last one are small, mind you; the methanol byproduct consists of a little under 14% of the total mass of the ingested aspartame - which in most cases is already quite small.
Note that methanol's toxic dose is around 80g, and that a liberal use of aspartame in a soft drink is about 0.5g/L. That means that in order to recieve a fatal dose of aspartame, you would have to consume over 1200L of soft drink in a time span short enough to overtake your body's elimination of it, about 30 hours. - devindotcom, on 10/11/2007, -9/+13Sure, there's been research going on here for about 30 years...
Of course, Aspartame metabolizes very quickly into phenylalanine... an extremely common AMINO ACID which most people can deal with just fine.
Now, if you're phenylketonuric, which a small proportion of the population is, you will have negative effects from buildup because you can't metabolize it. People who don't know they're phenylketonuric could easily mistake their intolerance for an "Aspartame headache" or something.
Besides, at this level of usage, it sounds like Aspartame is less harmful than grapefruit. - howzitgoin88, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4*****... I drink it at room temperature...
- Fordi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Actually, I'm tempted to agree with this. I remember a study in the mid-90's that said much the same thing.
- Scottamus, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5There IS a cancer epidemic dumbass. It's the 2nd leading cause of death. Is it all caused by aspertame? no, but if it ups your odds by 5% I'll pass. It's just one more straw on the cancer camel's back.
If someone gets cancer they won't know why. The doctor won't say "gee you drank a lot of diet soda. tsk tsk". It a lot of little things that can add up. - Layne, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Atdigg, that sounds like what the chemical companies would say.
- praveenmarkandu, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Lets see.... classic coke gives me diabetes, while Coke Zero gives me cancer.....
hmm.... i think i will go with the treatable disease. - Fordi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3>_<
"The processed food we all eat ... is CHEMICAL"
Naw, really? I didn't think there were chemicals in *anything*.
Even fresh fruits and veggies (and meats) are made up of chemicals; unprocessed foods simply have a more robust makeup thereof, as they've not been altered to maximize those chemicals we know the benefits of.
Well, maybe. That fresh tomato of yours has very likely been treated with ethylene to accelerate the ripening process, for example. Similar treatments are given to most of your fruits and veggies - even the 'organic' ones (the 'Organic' label is only to do with conditions in the growing process. Once it's off the vine, all is fair game).
Meanwhile, while moderation is good in all things (even moderation), absolutely cutting a historically normal thing out of your diet - meat, sugar, carbs, damn-near-everything (weirdo macrobiotics) can have unforseen health effects that are easily worse than those experienced by just eating sensibly.
But, you know, some people need to feel smarter than everyone else. That's fine. Your anemia doesn't hurt me at all.
"first comment ever on this site, if i dont make sense that is because i speak french."
Fine fine. It may just be Digg randomly stripping them, but may I ask that next time you comment, you break your thoughts into paragraphs? - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Drink water. I do and haven't drank American cola for years except when I need to mix it with vodka or rum.
- manicjunkee, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5From the wikipedia article on the aspertame controversy..section aspartame approval process
"The head of the FDA, Jere E. Goyan, was removed from his post on the first day of Ronald Reagan's presidency (1981). Previously, Goyan refused to approve the legalization of aspartame, due to the studies documenting increase of cancers in rats. Reagan appointed Arthur Hayes, MD, (FDA Commissioner 1981-1983) Commissioner. He legalized aspartame a year later. Reagan supporter Donald Rumsfeld was president and later CEO of G. D. Searle & Company from 1977 to 1985.[77][78] Arthur Hull Hayes MD was a defense contractor before he was head of the FDA. In November 1983 Hayes was under fire for accepting corporate gifts. He quit and joined Searle's public-relations firm as senior medical advisor. Searle lawyer Robert B. Shapiro, renamed aspartame NutraSweet. Monsanto purchased Searle. Rumsfeld received a $12 million bonus. Shapiro later became Monsanto president.
Several members of the FDA board left their jobs after stevia (aspartame's main competitor then) was banned in 1991. They were all hired at Nutrasweet in higher paying jobs, according to national records. Dr. Michael Friedman quit the FDA when Jane Henney was selected to become the permanent FDA commissioner (1999). Friedman elected to sign with G. D. Searle as a senior vice president at a purported $500,000 a year. He later accepted a position with Monsanto.
In February 2007, Page to Pantry, a radio program on the public radio station KPFK 90.7FM in Los Angeles, reported that aspartame was refused approval by the FDA for eight years before finally being approved under the leadership of Arthur Hayes. Immediately after, Hayes left the FDA and went to work for the artificial sweetener industry. This so-called "Revolving-Door" policy seems to be very common in the food additive industry."
Just sounds shady. - jonnyeh, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6Little was known about ANY food in all of human history until recently. Unless there's a reason to assume a substance that is tasty and appears harmless is harmful, then why avoid it? Aspartame makes the lives of diabetics and people who want to avoid calories much better. So far, it appears as though the benefits outweigh the risks (if there are any!) If convincing evidence is brought to light, then I'm sure appropriate measures will be taken, such as switching to splenda.
Don't fall prey to the 'natural is better' fallacy. Just because nature produces a substance, it doesn't mean it's healthy or even safe. - bigteebo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Everybody knows sleep gives you cancer, Rik.
- LloydDobbler, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4You're actually thinking of saccharin, AKA "Sweet N' Low"...which, incidentally, was taken off the carcinogen list 5+ years ago. Hence, you no longer see those disclaimers on Sweet N' Low packets. (Go to the grocery store and look, if you don't believe me).
The saccharin thing was the same thing as the current aspartame thing: a witchhunt. For some reason, people are predisposed to mistrust artificial things...even when, like saccharin, they mimic natural substances. And the anecdotal evidence of people who claim migraines are a result of drinking diet soda (most, to my knowledge, are not - I certainly don't get migraines), as well as false positives from phenylketonourics who disregard the warning label, etc, etc, only fuel the fire. Problem being, there have been no conclusive, peer-reviewed studies in 20+ years that show a causation link between asartame and any of these claimed effects. Only studies like this one, which are fear-mongering junk science, at best (if it wasn't junk science, they'd share their methodology and data for peer review, which they're not.) Article refuting said study: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18236994/ -
Show 51 - 100 of 256 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is