Aspartame Linked to Leukemia & Lymphoma in Groundbreaking Study


advertisement - learn more

Each year, Americans consume about 5,250 tons of aspartame in total. 86 percent of this aspartame (4,500 tons) is from the consumption of diet sodas. Diet soda is the largest dietary source of aspartame  in the U.S. A study recently published at the beginning of December 2012 links the consumption of Aspartame to increased risk of Lymphoma and Leukemia. The study was conducted by the Channing Division of Network Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA and Nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA. The study was a follow up after a 22 year period of data collection including frequent dietary and health check ups of the study group.

We have covered the subject of aspartame on several occasions that included findings that deomstrate how aspartame damages the brain. This new study suggests that as little as a single 355ml can of diet soda daily greatly increases the risk for cancers in men and women. It can also increase the risk of multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma in men. The results of this study forces us to really look at the effects of aspartame as there has never been a more comprehensive, long term study ever done on the topic. It is important to note that this can also reveal many more serious diseases and illnesses as data is observed even further.

The Most Comprehensive Study to Date on Aspartame

This study tracks over two million person-years giving it a huge pile of data to generate results from. Researchers prospectively analyzed data from the Nurses’ Health Study and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study for a 22-year period. A total of 77,218 women and 47,810 men were included in the analysis, for a total of 2,278,396 person-years of data. It is not just the sample size of this study that makes it impressive, it is also the thoroughness with which aspartame intake was assessed in comparison to previous studies. Over the course of the study, every two years participants were given a detailed dietary questionnaire, and their diets were reassessed every four years. Shockingly, previous studies done on aspartame who revealed no link between aspartame and cancer in humans, only assessed participants’ aspartame intake at one point in time. This poses a major weakness in the accuracy of previous studies.

The combined results of this new study showed that just one 12-fl oz. can (355 ml) of diet soda daily leads to:

- 42 percent higher leukemia risk in men and women (pooled analysis)
- 102 percent higher multiple myeloma risk (in men only)
- 31 percent higher non-Hodgkin  lymphoma risk (in men only)

This is a powerful set of results as it leaves little to ponder about when it comes to the long time talked about risks of aspartame on our health. The results were based on multi-variable relative risk models, all in comparison to participants who drank no diet soda. It is important to note that it still remains unknown why only men drinking higher amounts of diet soda showed increased risk for multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, but the continuation of this study may reveal these results later.

Most of the past studies showing no link between aspartame and cancer have been criticized for being too short in duration and too inaccurate in assessing long-term aspartame intake. This new study solves both of those issues. The study in fact shows a positive link to cancer and it should come as no surprise given that a previous best-in-class research study done on animals (900 rats over their entire natural lifetimes) showed strikingly similar results back in 2006. More worrying is the follow up mega-study, which started aspartame exposure of the rats at the fetal stage. Increased lymphoma and leukemia risks were confirmed, and this time the female rats also showed significantly increased breast (mammary) cancer rates. This raises a critical question: will future, high-quality studies uncover links to the other cancers or diseases in which aspartame has been implicated?

My Own Thoughts
I have been researching aspartame and other health related ilnesses for a few years now and have found a lot of different information as it relates to effects of various substances on health. This study stands out from many as it illustrates the importance of conducting research that is of quality and done over time. While we cannot confirm with 100% accuracy that this was the key factor in these ilnesses, we can confirm that it does play a big role. Also, when we look at what exists today as studies that are in favor of Aspartame being safe, we find that there are many weaknesses behind them that would produce poor results in accuracy.

Of course we can always go back to what feels natural and what would make sense when we look at our foods and I think this is something that we dont require  a scientific analysis to observe. Of course this is my opinion but, when we are adding chemicals that are synthetic and created in a lab to our food, it does not reflect naturally occurring elements that we are designed to consume. The human body was not designed to take in these types of substances through nature, which makes perfect sense as to why the majority of chemicals found in foods today have numerous links to serious health affects. This isn’t to say the body can’t handle all synthetics, but instead just shows that we should not be surprised to find out results like this.

If previous research on the subject was not enough, there is now undeniable evidence that suggests we should not be consuming aspartame at all in our diet. Switching over to sugar sweetened soda is also not a good alternative as this study also found that men consuming one or more sugar-sweetened sodas daily saw a 66 percent increase in non-Hodgkin lymphoma. It has become clear that having no soda at all in our diet is the ideal way to go. This would not only remove the aspartame and sugar risks, but it will also help in keeping your body in a more alkaline state.

Sources:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16507461
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23097267
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17805418


Top Health Experts & Visionaries Speak Out About Food

What do Paul McCartney, Tony Robbins and Dr. Mark Hyman all have in common? They want you to know something important.

The big food companies tell us there’s nothing wrong with their products or their practices. But the truth is, something IS WRONG.

The Food Revolution Summit is a free summit where visionary voices come from around the world to speak about something that touches all of us: Food.

The summit begins April 25th so be sure to sign up for FREE now!

advertisement - learn more

More From 'Awareness'

CE provides a space for free thinkers to explore and discuss new, alternative information and ideas. The goal? Question everything, think differently, spread love and live a joy filled life.

  1. Bev Ashley

    I have never used much aspartame in my lifetime but when i used it only one time it caused me to get a headache and I knew it was not something that i should consume.. THe glass of beverage that it was in, formed a white film and that was caused bythe aspartame I was convinced ! So thankful that new research has found out it is not safe and I beleive it should be ban. so many food contain this chemical now it is frighteningl Please see that it stops being consumed.

    Reply
    • OMG. Did you read the same report as I did? Please re-read all three. The reports are weak science at best. Their conclusion are nothing at all pointing to what you are thinking. Get over this paranoia about aspartame!

      Reply
      • sassy

        I have to completely disagree with you, asptartame causes all kinds of health issues, I shouldn’t get bad stomach aches and horrible migraines after one can of diet soda. Now when I drink a soda, which is like once a month, I go for one with sugar versus aspartame, that way I don’t end up with migraines and horrible stomach aches. Your comment is null and void!!!!

        Reply
      • Wal-Jah

        If it is weak science then why does it have a chemical reaction at 86 degrees turning it into formaldehyde
        Isn’t the body body temp 96 degrees. Why have the coroners reports of people who drank too much say cause of death toxic poisoning from formaldehyde. I think you need to do some more research and stop sucking the teet of the chemical company that produces this stuff. They also created the agent orange used in Vietnam on their own USA citizens.

        Reply
        • John E. Garst, Ph.D. (Medicinal Chemistry, Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Nutrition)

          Wal-Jah, I’m sorry to say you have been totally misinformed by the aspartame critics, who know nothing either about toxicology (the science of poisons) or about this sweetener. That alone accounts for the fact that aspartame is approved by the regulatory agencies of 90+ nations worldwide.

          Here is what you don’t know. Aspartame can react with water given heat and over time be converted (hydrolyzed) into its constituents–methanol and the parent dual amino acid aspartylphenylalanine; the latter may also be further hydrolyzed into its single amino acids (aspartate and phenylalanine). That said, methanol and these amino acids are perfectly stable in the soft-drink can, but this reaction with water removes aspartame’s sweetness, which is completely associated with the intact aspartame molecule. Upon human ingestion these same three products are produced by stomach hydrolysis.

          So where does the formaldehyde you mention come from? Formaldehyde and its further oxidation product formate arise in liver from oxidation of that methanol. Critics scream this is an issue, but it simply is not. Toxicology is all about dose. Everything is toxic, but that toxicity occurs only at a certain dose (concentration). Critics are trying to scare the public, but this fails with scientists, because screaming that something is toxic without recognition of the dose (concentration) factor is meaningless diatribe. And that is why trained scientists everywhere refuse to listen.

          The reality is that formaldehyde and formate pose little risk at the doses involved from aspartame; these substances [quoting another] are “produced in the body during the endogenous demethylation of many compounds, including many foods [fruit juices] and drugs. For example, the demethylation of the caffeine found in one cup of coffee produces 30 mg of formaldehyde (Imbus, 1988). Formaldehyde is essential in one-carbon pool intermediary metabolism. The metabolite of formaldehyde, formic acid, is a substrate for purine nucleotide synthesis (Sheehan and Tully, 1983). It can be calculated that more than 50,000 mg [that’s 50 g] of formaldehyde is produced and metabolized in an adult human body daily and that an adult human liver will metabolize 22 mg of formaldehyde per minute (Clary and Sullivan, 1999). Consequently, it is quite clear that the formaldehyde from aspartame provides a trivial contribution to total formaldehyde exposure and metabolism in the body” (p 18 in and refs from http://www.fte.ugent.be/vlaz/Magnuson2007.pdf). In fact the methyl groups produced from formaldehyde and formate by folate-B12 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_B12) are vital to our very existence. They are used to protect DNA and methylate the really toxic homocysteine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homocysteine) into very valuable methionine.

          Now consider clear poisoning by methanol. It requires many milliliters of methanol, but poisoning is actually not due to the methanol or to the formaldehyde either—that formaldehyde becomes protein bound in the blood. The real poisoning is due to the production of formic acid (formate) faster than the often deficient folic acid/B12 vitamin systems can remove it. That causes accrual of formate and acidosis. Reducing the production of formate by inhibiting the enzyme making it, treatment of acidosis and enhancement by dietary folate (or related drugs) are the steps physicians take in methanol poisoning, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12216995.

          John E. Garst, Ph.D. (Medicinal Chemistry, Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Nutrition)

          Reply
          • Brian

            the best scientifically illiterate people can do is to dismiss you as being ‘brainwashed’? lmao

            John what’s your opinion on GMO foods?

            Reply
            • John E. Garst, Ph.D. (Medicinal Chemistry, Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Nutrition

              In answer to your question I think concerning GMO safety it would seem that, as with any chemical substance, the matter depends on the application. In the case of Monsanto’s glyphosate (‘Roundup’), for example, there is probably no better example of what ‘selective toxicity’ is about. Glyphosate specifically targets a biochemical pathway critical to plants, but which doesn’t even exist in animals, see Wikipedia’s entry on glyphosate. Monsanto scientists found that some microorganisms were resistant to the herbicide, because they contained a different enzyme. Then Monsanto scientists engineered that genetic fragment into the genes of various plant food crops. This protected those engineered crops from glyphosate toxicity and allowed unprotected plants (weeds) to be removed easily by glyphosate treatment. How consuming any such GMO would introduce any food safety risk defies common sense. On the other hand this approach presumes glyphosate safety. While a few in vitro published concerns about its safety have appeared, it is completely and quickly excreted in the urine, a fact which may have contributed to EPA’s recently raising its residue limits, http://www.cornucopia.org/2013/06/epa-raised-residue-limits-of-monsantos-glyphosate-herbicide/. Dow similarly developed a GMO that conferred resistance to the herbicide 2,4-D, so that this substance could be used to kill unwanted weeds.

              Some GMO generate active pesticides, which need more examination. One such type is genetically programmed to produce the same toxic protein as a bacterium (Bacillus thuringiensis), which has a long safety record for application to plants as a pesticide (read more in Wikipedia about Bacillus thuringiensis).

              GMO offer yet another approach to increased food production. But just as people become resistant to antibiotics, plants become resistant to glyphosate or 2,4-D and insects become resistant to the Bt-protein. This means that in later years of use, alternative herbicides or pesticides may have to be used. And this may increase their use as discussed (http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/10/how-gmos-ramped-us-pesticide-use). However, contrary to the point of this article, the essential question is not whether the use of these old-line chemicals increases; it is whether adding GMOs increase total food supply more than it increases the use of these old-line chemicals. Whether we like it or not, there is a continuous world-wide battle to ensure adequate food production. Population control in developed countries is not the solution; populations in those countries are dropping compared to undeveloped countries. Reduction or elimination of GMO and/or chemicals will cause mass starvation, but that starvation will less likely be in developed countries than it will be in undeveloped countries. So there is a definite place for both GMOs and for chemicals in this world.

              Now as to production of aspartame by GMO, this is not unusual. In fact most protein substances and many, many drugs are now made for production purposes by inserting the relevant gene into bacteria and letting them make the substance. Then all one has to do is remove the bacteria and chemically isolate the substance. This saves alot of chemical synthesis steps each with its own waste products.

              John E. Garst, Ph.D. (Medicinal Chemistry, Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Nutrition

      • Elene

        Ha! I can tell you what my body tells me is NOT weak science. Your assumption that the article only shows an insufficient underdtsnding of the bigger picture. This epidemiological study is perhaps one of the finest.

        Reply
        • John E. Garst, Ph.D. (Medicinal Chemistry, Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Nutrition)

          Elene, this paper IS scientific garbage. When it is clear papers are done poorly (where is any folate or related control) they are dismissed and should be by the scientific toxicological community. I don’t know what your body is telling you when you consume aspartame sweetened drinks, but if it is headaches read further.

          Consider just aspartame’s most widely reported issue, migraine headaches. Migraines have been linked directly to the MTHFR C677T folate polymorphism (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19619240 and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19384265). Both papers report complete resolution of these migraines with added folate alone. These investigations revealed that more than the normal daily recommended amounts are needed (2-5 mg), but in these papers increased folate doses ALONE solved the migraine problem [and aspartame was not even involved]. That alone suggests a human sub-population that is even more deficient in folate for which resolution of their symptoms requires even more folate. And that is confirmed by science; up to 40% of some populations have these genetic folate polymorphisms that require even more folate, but most don’t even know it. For more read http://download.cell.com/AJHG/pdf/PIIS0002929707614001.pdf?intermediate=true.

          If this isn’t sufficient consider this posting of 135 papers evaluating the folate methanol connection, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=folic+acid%2Cmethanol

          So really now, don’t you think the authors of this paper should have been knowledgeable enough to investigate this issue?

          John E. Garst, Ph.D. (Medicinal Chemistry, Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Nutrition)

          Reply
          • derkee

            I am with you Doc. The article resources only gives ingredients and empirical data. Nothing concrete or conclusive… It is like saying, since you have not gone to any planets, there are none out there… Very poor inductive reasoning…

            Reply
          • Tap

            Migraines have multiple causes, what link does aspartame have to folate? Explain that before you go derailing a discussion, Mr. PhD.

            Reply
          • Brian

            John Garst thank you for that!! the ignorance of some of these luddites is as scary as the ignorance of greedy corporations that compromise society with their agenda!

            Reply
          • Elene

            Well, I can see from your credentials that you’re thoroughly schooled, however with that comes an intense shaping of your thinking and evaluative processes. So am I going to take you’re response as The Answer? NO, not on your life.

            Cite what you like, I did not get headaches, have better folate levels. And found my digestive system and mouth/ sense of taste affected. Felt disgusting long before I ever heard anything else. So no amount of mental or “scientific” manipulation will alter my decisions on this.

            This could be fodder for a lengthy discussion. I prefer the findings of such a very long term epidemiological study to the pop up in the lab findings.

            And why so much sweet at all?

            Reply
    • I have been saying this for years, watched people around me die, heard children dying of leukemia and always said the increase was due to the amount of aspartame and aspartamine children are given every day of their lives. I avoid it because it makes my stomach cramp up and I feel bloated.

      Reply
    • dennie

      That’s true. I get a pounding headache just after drinking 1/3 to 1/2 can of diet soda or eat something that has it in it. I now sugar isn’t great for you either, but it’s at least natural.

      Reply
      • lucie mayer

        Isn’t sugar, as aspartame, GMO?

        Reply
        • Elene

          The former is a molecule created in a lab while much of the cane & beet sugar is now GM. it is still grown by plants. Sweetners such as oganics, agave, honey are generally better.

          Reply
        • kirbs

          beet sugar GMO, cane sugar not

          Reply
  2. Kristin

    From the link you provided to the research:

    CONCLUSION: Although our findings preserve the possibility of a detrimental effect of a constituent of diet soda, such as aspartame, on select cancers, the inconsistent sex effects and occurrence of an apparent cancer risk in individuals who consume regular soda do not permit the ruling out of chance as an explanation.

    Reply
    • Hank

      Keep drinking it then.

      Reply
  3. The conclusion could just be that males are more susceptible to cancer from Aspartame. When working in research in this field and against the decisions of authorities you don’t dare to say anything that is not absolutely conclusive and almost nothing is. Only authorities dare do that. Eating synthetic food is asking for trouble and it is definitely unnatural.

    Reply
    • AdenosinePush

      But the same study also stated that in men were at risk for a different cancer by drinking soda with normal sucrose in it but not aspartame….do you mean to say that ‘natural’ sugar should hold the same weight as a potential carcinogen? I shouldn’t think so…

      Reply
      • lucie mayer

        HFCS, Aspartame ans sugar are all derived from GMO, whether beet, corn, cane, or in the case of Aspartame, god knows what. The best sugar is maple syrup, in small quantities. If you require more than 1 tsp maple syrup/day, better to check your fruit intake, as it may be too low. Raw honey is also very good, although its glycemic index is slightly higher that that of maple syrup.

        Reply
  4. Jennifer Smith

    Joe, what is your level of expertise in nutrition, biochemistry, and appropriate design and interpretation of clinical trials? There are numerous factors to be strongly considered when we look at these trials and try to make conclusions about what they really tell us.

    As a doctor of pharmacy, I received some very valuable basic education on this subject. I have not yet read the entire article of the study that was published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, but after seeing a friend post a link to this website on Facebook, I read the abstract of the trial. From a quick look at the abstract alone, I have some very strong reservations about it providing us with any significant new information on the subject. Let me share just a few of my observations at first glance:

    Firstly, as a previous reader has mentioned, when the authors of the trial state themselves in their abstract conclusion that they cannot rule out chance as an explanation for the end result that they are measuring (various kinds of cancer, in this case), then we should use extreme caution when trying to decide if the trial really gives us any conclusive evidence for the case they are trying to make.

    Secondly, when a study calculates relative risk (RR) for an end result, you have to look closely at the raw data – the absolute risk, or actual incidence of that endpoint in both cohorts. So we need to look at the actual incidence of cancer in the people of who drank diet colas w/aspartame and the actual incidence of cancer in those who drank regular colas. For example, if the incidence of cancer was 1 in 100 million for those who drank diet colas and the incidence was 1.3 in 100 million for those who drank regular colas, then the relative risk is 1.3, but there is practically (and clinically) no real difference between the 2 people and their risk for getting cancer. (I’ll have to look at the full article for that essential info…)

    Thirdly, we must always interpret relative risks (RRs) in the context of the confidence intervals (CIs) cited in a study. When a confidence interval comes very close to or crosses 1.0, this tells us that the relative risk calculated in the study isn’t very reliable at all. It is not statistically significant (ie there might not really be much of a difference in the incidence of the end point in the 2 cohorts). Three out of four confidence intervals we are given in this abstract include numbers extremely close to or equal to 1.0 (they are 1.01, 1.10, and 1.00).

    There are a number of other things we need to consider when evaluating a clinical trial. We need to look at what the authors of the study did to control for other factors that could have contributed to the end point in the 2 cohorts. We know that there are a number of factors that increase a person’s risk for various kinds of cancer (for example, maybe genetics, tobacco use, diet, physical activity, certain types of infections, environmental exposures to different types of chemicals and radiation, etc). From the abstract alone, I’m not sure what the authors of this study did to ensure that the subjects who drank diet cola didn’t get cancer because of one of those other reasons. I’ll take a look.

    I hope you will strongly consider the issues I have mentioned here. We need to be extremely careful about passing on our personal conclusions about these kind of studies.

    Thank you,
    —Jennifer Smith, PharmD, RPh
    Austin, TX

    Reply
    • Kristine

      I stopped drinking diet soda two years ago and feel 100% better. I have lost 17 pounds drink filtered water and avoid all fake sugar. Frankly I try to avoid all sugar. Aspartame is another Monsanto product. With their amazing track record of winning products like Agent Orange, pcbs, and GMO, it is no surprise to learn that this crap comes from them too.

      Reply
      • ssurfcity

        Right on. That speaks volumes.

        Reply
    • Janine

      How much diet soda do you drink each day, Jennifer?

      Reply
    • Joel Santinum

      You are right in some aspects. But since you were educated in a medical school that probably receives money from pharmaceutical companies whether you like to admit it or not, of course they educate you why you shouldn’t worry about THEIR drugs. Because without pharmacists like you they wouldn’t be making any money! (Because in the end that’s basically all they care about, maybe not you but they do, again whether they’d like to admit it or not.) Of course not everyone will get cancer from Aspartame but there’s no doubt it causes harm to the body. I think more people should be extremely careful when listening to doctors trying to prove their products that make them money as harmless. I honestly don’t care about what any studies say, I know that people shouldn’t be taking any form of drug or capsule that isn’t natural because it really is all about making money to them. Otherwise, they would promote all natural and organic ingredients, but no, that would be too expensive to mass produce. I’m sorry but I don’t trust pharmacists/doctors and drug companies and never will.

      Reply
      • infidel

        I’m sure, you’re right ! Joel, you jumped directly into the right conclusion…

        It’s all about the money ; the roots of evil, decay and destruction worldwide.

        Reply
        • John E. Garst, Ph.D. (Medicinal Chemistry, Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Nutrition)

          Do you and Joel really think that you could get the totally independent regulators of 90+ soverign countries to agree on anything, if the science wasn’t overwhelming?

          John E. Garst, Ph.D. (Medicinal Chemistry, Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Nutrition)

          Reply
          • - Collective Evolution

            IN theory this would be the hopeful outcome, but our world doesn’t rely on the obvious sometimes so it cannot be a solid rule of thumb to follow. Money, corruption and power get in the way. Look at 9/11, the science is beyond any reasonable doubt that the official story is blatantly incorrect, yet still the majority of the world states it’s true. Monsanto’s GMOs have been proven dangerous, yet only half or so of world leaders won’t work with Monsanto. Sometimes that argument just doesn’t work out.

    • Hi Jennifer.
      I think you should definably read the studies in order to make better discernment.
      Question those red flags and alarm bells because they lead to your personal beliefs and definitions.

      Ps: Perception is not reality. Plus reality itself is not empirical at all!
      All i’m saying is: do not trust anyone’s BS, including your own.
      “Belief System”.

      Reply
    • aspartame has major controversy surrounding how it became approved by the FDA. Look it up. It is expected that when evidence is published that goes against a product that certain companies are making billions from there will be counter attacks. People claiming to be scientists and with huge credentials that just happen to scour the internet waiting to give the propaganda reply. Thanks Jennifer, right on cue. Just remember if your swaying anyone who might be on the edge of ditching this unhealthy chemical, yes chemical, from their diet, you get the Karma when they get cancer. Wether you believe in Karma or not, swaying people from leaving behind their obesity, diabetes, cancer, acidic ph causing chemical sweeteners is unethical.

      Reply
      • Zefzum

        @Tom, Regular Sugar is not a chemical and it casues Diabetes. I did not know that Aspartame causes Diabetes though…Did I miss that in this article?

        Reply
        • lisa cantelon

          white sugar is a chemical…..

          Reply
    • threenorns

      but then, what to conclude from “The results of this mega-experiment indicate that APM is a multipotential carcinogenic agent, even at a daily dose of 20 mg/kg body weight, much less than the current acceptable daily intake. On the basis of these results, a reevaluation of the present guidelines on the use and consumption of APM is urgent and cannot be delayed.”

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16507461

      and “The results of this carcinogenicity bioassay confirm and reinforce the first experimental demonstration of APM’s multipotential carcinogenicity at a dose level close to the acceptable daily intake for humans. Furthermore, the study demonstrates that when life-span exposure to APM begins during fetal life, its carcinogenic effects are increased.”

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17805418

      you cannot pull one source out of three and disregard the other two.

      Reply
      • You need to look at other findings in that study. Perhaps the most interesting one is that there was no difference in overall mortality between consumers of aspartame and controls. We all die of something. A difference in diet may shift the risk from one type of mortality to another. That is what appears to have happened here. In some of the cancers the consumption of aspartame at lower doses resulted in fewer cancers than in controls. One might conclude from that that there was a protective effect from aspartame. Contrary to what some would have you believe, this study doesn’t provide a smoking gun with which to condemn aspartame.

        Reply
        • Notso Smart

          Thanks for the very rational response, Dr. Wortman.

          Reply
    • Stan Mims

      Jennifer…I have been drinking one 12 oz Mtn Dew for about 5/6 years now for my “coffee” in the morning since I do not like the taste of coffee. This article has got my attention now since this is the first time I have ever seen or read anything on aspartame. I am currently healthy as I exercise and try to eat right. I just wonder or think is now the time to stop drinking diet drinks?

      Thanks!

      Reply
      • Thanks to Jennifer for the very succinct statistical explanation.

        Tl;dr version: this study tells us practically nothing important.

        Stan: I recommend trying to get used to the taste of coffee or tea and consuming these natural beverages. There’s a lot of research data out there that supports drinking at least a couple cups and up to 5 cups of coffee/tea a day – they’re fantastic anti-oxidants!

        Furthermore, the main problem with aspartame is that it decouples our relationship between sweetness and carbs, essentially confusing our bodies and increasing our cravings for sweet things. If you’re going to drink soda, drink it in limited amounts, regardless of the sweetening agent used!

        Reply
      • Stan mims

        Sorry I mean 8 oz bottle!

        Reply
  5. Jean-francois

    People talked about it for years …
    I drank diet cola and chew gum for years…. Maybe that is why i developped large difuse b-cell lymphoma…. At 39 years of age…

    Reply
  6. marlene

    All of these stories are very familiar to me as I work in the field of oncology and blood disorders. Your diet/lifestyle must be as natural as possible in order to allow your cells to complete their processes. Chemicals and sugars create a highly acidic environment in your body which will most definitely feed a cancer or disease. There is no joy in living life with a chronic illness.

    Reply
  7. Thomas

    “CONCLUSION:

    Although our findings preserve the possibility of a detrimental effect of a constituent of diet soda, such as aspartame, on select cancers, the inconsistent sex effects and occurrence of an apparent cancer risk in individuals who consume regular soda do not permit the ruling out of chance as an explanation.”

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23097267

    Just figured I’d throw that in there.

    Reply
    • it’s the caffeine that is causing your headaches. going off coffee will do the same thing.

      Reply
    • threenorns

      why does one doubtful source cancel out two others that say that it is, indeed, a serious problem?

      Reply
  8. Dawn

    Ouch . I dont drink hot drinks so I live on diet cola , I drink about 4ltr everyday . And have done for the last 25 years. If i dont have any In the house my head is pounding by midday. If on odd occasions I have tried to move over to water it’s takes 4 days before the headaches subside . I’m thinking I need to stop . NOW

    Reply
    • Kristine

      Dawn, I assume your diet cola is not caffeine-free? If that’s the case, then it’s very likely that your headaches are caused by caffeine withdrawal, not by aspartame. That’s a very common side effect of giving up caffeine. I had headaches for over a week when I finally gave it up.

      Reply
  9. Carla

    I have not ever drank a lot of diet pop. Not to say I haven’t drank some, my concern is I have shewed up to a pack of gum a day sometimes when I was working. Makes me wonder. Thought I was doing good.

    Reply
  10. I personally do not drink a lot of diet soda, but my daughter, Pam drank way too much diet coke. Thank you for this very important information and will not have another diet in my house.

    Reply
  11. keith

    It’s all about moderation – too much of anything can be bad for you. You could be killed in a vehicle accident – this doesn’t stop one from driving, however, if you pay attention and don’t drive drunk or while fatigued you have a better chance of staying alive…if you live on takeout’s and your diet is high in saturated fats, you drink copious amounts of sugared/sugar free beverages it does eventually catch up with you. Unprotected sex is a no-no and this doesn’t stop a lot of people. Don’t eat red meat; rather have fish…fish has the potential to be high in mercury and can be lethal. Sushi is uncooked – doesn’t stop us from eating it. Smoking, drinking heavily and general over indulgence is a problem. How many non-smoking, non-drinking non overindulgent people do you know?

    If we had to stop eating or drinking or using everything that is “bad” for you there probably isn’t much we could take in. think genetically modified foods, preservatives, heck even multivitamins get a bad rap. The list is endless. Worrying about everything that is potentially bad for you is really not good for your health either…

    Prevention, or moderation in this matter, is better than cure.

    Reply
    • lucie mayer

      I am very sorry, but htis one has nothing to do with moderation. HFCS is very addictive. It’s near impossible to have ONE product that contains. Why? Because this poison “resonates” in the body. Sugar is also addictive, but not so much the non-GMO kinds. HFCS should not be allowed in foods, neither Asparthame, which is just as addictive.

      A car accident can be avoided, some times, but having one will not make you want another one.

      Reply
      • SireneB

        Has anyone actually studied the addictiveness of GMO sugar vs. non-GMO sugar? what is this statement based on: “Sugar is also addictive, but not so much the non-GMO kinds.” ?????

        Reply
  12. I used to think al Queda or some other foreign terrorists would poison our food supply. Looks like we have already been doing a pretty good job of it ourselves! Thanks to Donald Rumsfeld who was in charge of Searle when Nutrasweet was approved. Thanks to Monsanto and all the other big corps for GMOs, pesticides, herbicides, etc.

    Reply
  13. “The conclusion was so weak that the researchers had to submit it to six journals before they found a seventh, the [American] Journal of Clinical Nutrition, that would publish it. Few reporters read that journal. If it was not for the frightening headline no one would have known about this study.”

    http://embargowatch.wordpress.com/2012/10/24/harvard-hospital-apologizes-for-promoting-weak-data-on-aspartame-cancer/

    Reply
  14. dw

    it has a new name because of these studies exposing how carcinogenic aspartame is. it’s been changed to Neotame, E number E961, and is a lot more toxic than aspartame was!! Once again it’s made by nutrasweet and includes 3,3-dimethylbutyraldehyde, “which blocks enzymes that break the peptide bond between aspartic acid and phenylalanine, thereby reducing the availability of phenylalanine. This eliminates the need for a warning on labels directed at people who cannot properly metabolize phenylalanine”. it makes it more stable in higher temperatures so it can be used in a wider market of consumed goods including baked goods, ready meals, meat and other foods that require heat to pre-cook or cook from raw!!

    be on the look out!! this is far more toxic than aspartame!!

    Reply
  15. Enlightened Soul

    From the study you referenced:
    RESULTS:

    When the 2 cohorts were combined, there was no significant association between soda intake and risks of NHL and multiple myeloma. However, in men, ≥1 daily serving of diet soda increased risks of NHL (RR: 1.31; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.72) and multiple myeloma (RR: 2.02; 95% CI: 1.20, 3.40) in comparison with men who did not consume diet soda. We observed no increased risks of NHL and multiple myeloma in women. We also observed an unexpected elevated risk of NHL (RR: 1.66; 95% CI: 1.10, 2.51) with a higher consumption of regular, sugar-sweetened soda in men but not in women. In contrast, when sexes were analyzed separately with limited power, neither regular nor diet soda increased risk of leukemia but were associated with increased leukemia risk when data for men and women were combined (RR for consumption of ≥1 serving of diet soda/d when the 2 cohorts were pooled: 1.42; 95% CI: 1.00, 2.02).

    CONCLUSION:

    Although our findings preserve the possibility of a detrimental effect of a constituent of diet soda, such as aspartame, on select cancers, the inconsistent sex effects and occurrence of an apparent cancer risk in individuals who consume regular soda do not permit the ruling out of chance as an explanation.

    Reply
  16. JohnH

    As several posters already have implied by quoting the conclusion from the original Journal of Clinical Nutrition article, this one clearly and deliberately misrepresents the research on which it is based to support a pre-determined stance. It and its author have no credibility.

    Reply
  17. The fact that there is even a doubt that the product is safe for use means there should be health warnings on products it is used in!! Linke Ban Aspartame now on Facebook!

    Reply
  18. Kelsey

    I really dig all of your posts and the information you bring to the table in this era of disinformation. My only request is that you revise your articles for typos so you look like a more credible source and so I can show it to my family without them thinking I found this article on Perez Hilton.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Collective Evolution welcomes differing viewpoints and thought-provoking opinions that add value to the discussion, but comments may be moderated to remove profanity or remarks that detract from a healthy conversation. For the best interest of the community, please refrain from posting vulgar comments, profanity, or personal attacks. Comments submitted may automatically be flagged for review by our moderation team before appearing on the website.

Featured TEDx Talk

TEDx - Agents of Change

Free Exclusive Film Screening!

Free Film Screening
advertisement - learn more
Connect, Inspire, Chat & Share!
CE Radio - Listen now!
advertisement - learn more
Amazers
Subscribe to CE Magazine Monthly For Exclusive Content!
The Mind Unleashed

We Recommend

www.truththeory.com

Trending Now

jeffjaundice

How I Healed My Failing Liver Naturally

This past February, I was thrown off of my health high-horse. What first started as a headache, fever, and body aches, quickly escalated into an excruciating migraine, debilitating muscle stiffness, and an overwhelming sense of nausea. I was hit with what I thought was…