Quote:
Originally Posted by Bugeater
John, what are your thoughts on the article in post #72?
|
Let me begin with some history. I got into this whole issue, when this antiaspartame group traveled to my state and tried to get aspartame banned. I and my family had used aspartame for years, so as a toxicologist my first thought was to review its safety. I quickly realized aspartame was quite safe.
Their attempt to ban aspartame was to use a legal loophole that could allow our state environmental organization to take action against it. Their intent was to try to get it banned here, so they could take this issue to California. Well they tried and they couldn't even get it done in my state. They blamed the soft-drink lobby, but the adverse science just isn’t there. They have failed in each state they have tried this; Hawaii is the latest state, but they tried New Zealand later. Now they want to arouse public sentiment ahead of a September review by the European Union (EFSA). But nothing is new. I keep letting the people know the real truth. Remember relevant governments around the world have tested and retested this substance and none can find harm with it.
Aspartame is perhaps the safest substance known. All I am trying to do is explain to the public why these arguments are garbage. First, 92 side effects are just impossible for toxic substances; they rarely have more than a few; so something else is going on here--and a vitamin issue fits nicely.
Second, as to the Bowen and to the Rense website things. I'm sure he means well, but I'm also sure this is just a rant from another physician untrained in toxicology; like others it is without substance. Google 'James Bowen,aspartame', then look near the top (second post for me) at the quackbuster site. Open it and see the following "When reading anti-Aspartame propaganda, consider the source! Names like Betty Martini, James D. Bowen, Russell Blaylock, HJ Roberts, John Olney, and Ralph Walton are the ones to notice. If they are named favorably, beware!' Feel free to read more in that link; it is very illuminating.
The Rense website is in honor of the webmaster’s father, whom critics attributed his death to aspartame. This occurred before the 1998 folate fortification date, likely in the 1980’s-1990’s when folate deficiency was rampant. It would have been very easy to mistake cause and effect given this widespread folate deficiency, especially if he used alot of aspartame. People mistakenly blame aspartame for migraines, but migraines can be linked directly to issues with personal folate enzymes.
Third, I will say something about several points in the #72 post though. First is the cited Dr. Maria Alemany/Trocho Study (Google PubMed, go there, then type 9714421 in the search line). This work is the most complicated of all the aspartame critic studies. It suffers the same control error as the Soffritti study I mentioned, but here that it makes no difference--they were trying to push dose to near toxic concentrations to facilitate radiolabelled methanol binding isolation; then they could track the radiolabel down. I carefully studied this work. Unlike noted methanol expert Tephly's criticism (see 10503962), who just cited past work and arguments (see also the formate-folate issues in Tephly's 1991 review, 1997785), I carefully read this work. For a long time it just was just strange and not easily explained for me; their claim of tissue binding of methanol is serious. And they excluded the bound amino acid as being a normal amino acid, suggesting it was hitting a really abnormal target—that could make it a real issue. But with careful reading I eventually understood exactly what they had done and from that, then I actually discovered the likely amino acid target that they didn't or (I have to wonder) wouldn't identify. I hope to publish this, so I don’t wish to get specific here. But this it is important, because knowing that target amino acid actually proves the safety of aspartame under toxic-dosing conditions in rats.
Lastly, I need to comment on the Coumadin-aspartame thing; specifically this: 'The People’s Pharmacy did write, “Aspartame (Equal, NutraSweet) is an artificial sweetener that may increase bleeding time, (Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Feb and May, 1998).' My thesis is that all side effects of aspartame are folate linked, so of course low folate (or related issues) should (if my theory is correct) increase bleeding time. And it does; PubMed 20206792 reports as their conclusion, “folic acid supplementation was associated with significantly increased formation [and] clearance of (S)-7-hydroxywarfarin.” Presumably then in people with folate deficiency, low folate or with folate enzyme issues, etc. that adversely impact folate function should decrease formation and clearance of this excreted metabolite and thus increase bleeding time of Coumadin exactly as reported.
Nothing unexpected here with Coumadin after all, but just another consistent piece to the same story! Again all adverse side effects ever claimed from aspartame are really due to personal issues revolving around their vitamins folate and B12 and related issues, not this sweetener.
John E. Garst, Ph.D. (Medicinal Chemistry, Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Nutrition)