No, It’s For Real: Aspartame Causes Cancer
By Daniel Miessler on October 5th, 2007: Tagged as Health
There’s been a ton of debate over the years about whether or not aspartame causes cancer. Based on the evidence out there I’ve always thought it likely true. Well, the evidence continues to get more and more compelling as additional, larger studies are done.
A 2005 study was published by the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP). This study was significantly larger than previous ones. So what did they find?
“Our study has shown that aspartame is a multipotential carcinogenic compound whose carcinogenic effects are also evident at a daily dose of 20 milligrams per kilogram of body weight (mg/kg), notably less than the current acceptable daily intake for humans,” the authors write.
From a Medical News Today summary:
Researchers administered aspartame to Sprague-Dawley rats by adding it to a standard diet. They began studying the rats at 8 weeks of age and continued until the spontaneous death of each rat. Treatment groups received feed that contained concentrations of aspartame at dosages simulating human daily intakes of 5,000, 2,500, 500, 100, 20, and 4 mg/kg body weight. Groups consisted of 100 males and 100 females at each of the three highest dosages and 150 males and 150 females at all lower dosages and controls.
The experiment ended after the death of the last animal at 159 weeks. At spontaneous death, each animal underwent examination for microscopic changes in all organs and tissues, a process different from the aspartame studies conducted 30 years ago and one that was designed to allow aspartame to fully express any carcinogenic potential.
The treated animals showed extensive evidence of malignant cancers including lymphomas, leukemias, and tumors at multiple organ sites in both males and females. The authors speculate the increase in lymphomas and leukemias may be related to one of the metabolites in aspartame, namely methanol, which is metabolized in both rats and humans to formaldehyde. Both methanol and formaldehyde have shown links to lymphomas and leukemias in other long-term experiments by the same authors.
In other words, the argument has always been, “Well if you give someone four times their body weight in just about anything it’ll probably cause cancer.” But that’s just it: all indications point to aspartame causing cancer at or below the amounts approved for human consumption by the FDA.
Seriously. Consider not consuming this poison anymore.:
[ Update: This link points to another study that refutes the Italian study. That study was extremely large and the results are discussed on the National Cancer Institute’s web page, which gives it a lot of weight in my book. But I still remain unconvinced.
The common argument of “humans are different than animals” simply doesn’t hold water for me, especially when the opposing evidence did not come from actually administering the aspartame in a lab environment like the Italian study did. Anyway, I sure as hell won’t be drinking the stuff, and I’ll continue to recommend that my friends and family don’t as well. ]
Actually the results for saccharin are ALSO totally inconclusive !!!
Comment by 1111 — 10/5/2007 @ 10:40 am
The results for saccharin are far from inconclusive. As the only artificial sweetener on the market with a lot of long term data (especially from heavy use diabetics over the last several decades), this is the only sweetener one can trust to be safe. The animal model studies that suggested a possible risk turned out to be a false alarm for humans.
Aspartame looks far worse, and Splenda (sucralose) is a still a complete unknown. Stevia is good, but I’m a little skeptical of all the processing it is going through to remove the bitter compounds.
Comment by Justin — 10/5/2007 @ 11:27 am
[…] Causes Cancer 1pssts whybee shared this 0 seconds ago http://dmiessler.com/blogarchive/no-its-for-real-aspartam… cached copy] There’s been a ton of debate over the years about whether or not […]
Pingback by PSST! it / Aspartame Causes Cancer — 10/5/2007 @ 11:51 am
This all ignores the overriding threat of DHMO. For shame.
http://www.dhmo.org/
Comment by Ben Hallert — 10/5/2007 @ 12:43 pm
מחקרים מראים שאספרטיים גורם לסרטן…
החומר שנמצא במשקאות דיאט ובמוצרים אחרים רבים נמצא כמסרטן…
Trackback by Anonymous — 10/5/2007 @ 12:49 pm
“So their entire argument goes something like this: “Sure it’s proven to cause all sorts of cancer in animals at the same levels approved for humans — nobody disputes that — but people are different than animals”.”
After that demonstration, I don’t think anyone would be interested in having you summarize their positions for them. Nobody disputes that? I’m sure…
Comment by craig — 10/5/2007 @ 1:18 pm
Umm, I’m not a doctor or anything, but I just read the source article, and the control group of lab rats had a tumor rate of 35.3%
Tumor % - aspartame dose 35% 0 mg/kg (control group) 29% 4 mg/kg 32% 20 mg/kg 40% 100 mg/kg (and it only increases from here)
I weigh 110 kg, at 20 mg/kg, I would have to drink over 20 diet soda’s per day to equal what the rats consumed. While someone who weighs 70 kg would still have to drink over a dozen soda’s. An interesting note, is that the rats in the 2 groups that only consumed a little aspartame actually had a lower tumor rate than any other group. Perhaps that is because they had the lowest caloric intake? Just a thought.
BTW: I totally agree that aspartame isn’t good for you, but I hate seeing things presented without appropriate context.
Comment by Bob — 10/5/2007 @ 2:02 pm
ugg message board ate my formatting, lets try again:
Tumor % - aspartame dose
35% 0 mg/kg (control group)
29% 4 mg/kg
32% 20 mg/kg
40% 100 mg/kg (and it only increases from here)
Comment by Bob — 10/5/2007 @ 2:03 pm
@Craig
What I’m saying is that many are saying the Italian study is solid, but that it doesn’t prove that aspartame is damaging to humans.
Comment by Daniel Miessler — 10/5/2007 @ 2:15 pm
Just quickly perusing the original paper - there isn’t a dosage response. I.e. you see higher cancers at some doses and lower at others. Even at their highest doses - where they’re serving the equivalent of what would be 3/4 of a lb of pure aspartame to a 175lb guy, they’re still seeing no dose response. That suggests their results are due to random variation, not due to aspartame being a causal agent. Their results are only significant to a p < 0.05. Meaning there’s a decent chance that this is merely random variation.
They might be right, but they certainly haven’t proven anything…
Comment by factician — 10/5/2007 @ 2:41 pm
Bob,
But it doesn’t go up from there. It goes down. Then up. That means there’s no dose response, meaning there is likely no relation to the product in question.
For those folks who don’t want to follow the link, let me finish the table that Bob didn’t write out:
34% 10,000 mg/kg 38% 50,000 mg/kg 43% 100,000 mg/kg
Granted, I’m not a toxicologist. But I think there’s no good reason to think that thye’ve proven anything one way or the other.
Comment by factician — 10/5/2007 @ 2:53 pm
No Aspartamine does not cause cancer to any significant extent and here’s why: If it did, the epidemiologists would have caught it. There are MILLIONS of people ingesting significant amounts of aspartamine daily, the effects of it would be totally obvious if it caused cancer.
Comment by Xianhang Zhang — 10/5/2007 @ 4:53 pm
Almost anything in excess promotes neoplasms!
Comment by smellyface — 10/5/2007 @ 5:19 pm
Unfortunately, with these kind of questions there’ll never be a conclusive study.
The artificial sweeteners are a very high profit industry. As such, a lot of money goes to make sure that a company’s products are sold. As a layman you have no idea which of the scientific studies were constructed to fit Ajinomoto’s idea of truth, Tate & Lyle’s or any of the other incumbents.
Think of any controversy which is highly profitable to at lest one side, and you’ll discover scientific papers “proving” either side. Tobacco, cellphone use, greenhouse gasses. When money is involved, it’s difficult to find an objective opinion just by reading the media. Not unless you’re personally involved.
– Arik
Comment by Arik — 10/5/2007 @ 6:27 pm
Aspartame - Rumsfeld’s Bioweapon Legacy
Among the many ironies of our modern world is that Gerald Ford awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom-America,s highest civilian honor-to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on January 19, 1977. Just a few weeks later on March 8, Rumsfeld became the CEO of G.D. Searle to take point on a mission to force the Food and Drug Administration to approve for human consumption a known carcinogen and neurotoxic poison.
Do a Web search on the title if you want to know more….
Comment by Radiskull — 10/5/2007 @ 7:11 pm
[…] dmiessler.com | No, It’s For Real: Aspartame Causes Cancer […]
Pingback by links for 2007-10-06 « Mike Does Tech — 10/5/2007 @ 7:42 pm
The CureHunter summary on Aspartame lists a few studies, didnt realize we were talking about nutrasweet…: http://www.curehunter.com/public/keywordSummaryD001218.do
Comment by PremedBoya — 10/5/2007 @ 7:57 pm
[…] dmiessler.com | No, It’s For Real: Aspartame Causes Cancer (tags: aspartame Cancer research health) […]
Pingback by uglychart.com » Blog Archive » links for 2007-10-06 — 10/5/2007 @ 11:23 pm
rumor: mouse urine is more concentrated than human urine. This concentration allows sharp pointy aspartame crystals to grow in mouse bladders. The sharp pointy crystals prod cells and cause mutation. The mutates cells spread. My point: Humans are different than mice in this important way.
Comment by dodi — 10/6/2007 @ 2:39 am
Some people need to do their research. The only reason the FDA approves any of these weird poisonous lab concoctions is that there are extensive conflicts of interest within the FDA. These artificial so-called ‘food’ products only get approved because MONEY TALKS! If it’s artificial, I can assure you it is unfit as food. How many things that the FDA approved have been recalled in the past? After people DIED? More than a few. Do you want to know about the FDA? Watch “The Future of Food” DVD. The FDA cannot be trusted.
Comment by Ed smithbat — 10/6/2007 @ 2:10 pm
Hey “geniuses”. I happen to know a few people who have had serious adverse reactions to Aspartame. Sure, one could attempt to dismiss this as some sort of intolerance. I mean, look at all the people with bad reactions to dairy products… but wait! Perhaps people aren’t designed to consume dairy, & some people are just more prone to the obvious reactions than others! But then, of course, there’s the WHEAT allergy thing. Wheat allergies have been proven to be on the rise. But then so has the amounts of EXTRA gluten added to food products. I think I see a pattern here. Perhaps people shouldn’t eat what people aren’t designed to properly digest. Also, LABS AND FOOD DON’T MIX. And to anyone who truly believes that there is such a thing as an artificial sweetener that is safe for human consumption, I have a nice BRIDGE I’d like to sell you.
Comment by Ed smith — 10/6/2007 @ 2:28 pm
Is Splenda Really As Safe As They Claim It to Be?
As of 2006, only six human trials have been published on Splenda (sucralose). Of these six trials, only two of the trials were completed and published before the FDA approved sucralose for human consumption. The two published trials had a grand total of 36 total human subjects.
36 people sure doesn’t sound like many, but wait, it gets worse, only 23 total were actually given sucralose for testing and here is the real killer:
The longest trial at this time had lasted only four days and looked at sucralose in relation to tooth decay, not human tolerance.
Why Do You Need to Know About Splenda?
Splenda, best known for its marketing logo, “made from sugar so it tastes like sugar,’ has taken the sweetener industry by storm. Splenda has become the nations number one selling artificial sweetener in a very short period of time.
Between 2000 and 2004, the percentage of US households using Splenda products jumped from 3 to 20 percent. In a one year period, Splenda sales topped $177 million compared with $62 million spent on aspartame-based Equal and $52 million on saccharin-based Sweet ‘N Low.
McNeil Nutritionals, in their marketing pitch for Splenda emphasizes that Splenda has endured some of the most rigorous testing to date for any food additive. Enough so to convince the average consumer that it is in fact safe. They claim that over 100 studies have been conducted on Splenda. What they don’t tell you is that most of the studies are on animals.
Additional Concerns About Splenda Studies
There have been no long-term human toxicity studies published until after the FDA approved sucralose for human consumption. Following FDA approval a human toxicity trial was conducted, but lasted only three months, hardly the length of time most Splenda users plan to consume sucralose. No studies have ever been done on children or pregnant women.
Much of the controversy surrounding Splenda does not focus just on its safety, but rather on its false advertising claims. The competition among sweeteners is anything but sweet. The sugar industry is currently suing McNeil Nutritionals for implying that Splenda is a natural form of sugar with no calories.
Is It REALLY Sugar?
There is no question that sucralose starts off as a sugar molecule, it is what goes on in the factory that is concerning. Sucralose is a synthetic chemical that was originally cooked up in a laboratory. In the five step patented process of making sucralose, three chlorine molecules are added to a sucrose or sugar molecule. A sucrose molecule is a disaccharide that contains two single sugars bound together; glucose and fructose.
The chemical process to make sucralose alters the chemical composition of the sugar so much that it is somehow converted to a fructo-galactose molecule. This type of sugar molecule does not occur in nature and therefore your body does not possess the ability to properly metabolize it. As a result of this “unique” biochemical make-up, McNeil Nutritionals makes it’s claim that Splenda is not digested or metabolized by the body, making it have zero calories.
It is not that Splenda is naturally zero calories. If your body had the capacity to metabolize it then it would no longer has zero calories.
How Much Splenda is Left In Your Body After You Eat It?
If you look at the research (which is primarily extrapolated form animal studies) you will see that in fact 15% of sucralose is absorbed into your digestive system and ultimately is stored in your body. To reach a number such as 15% means some people absorb more and some people absorb less. In one human study, one of the eight participants did not excrete any sucralose even after 3 days. Clearly his body was absorbing and metabolizing this chemical. That is what our bodies are supposed to do.
The bottom line is that we all have our own unique biochemical make-up. Some of you will absorb and metabolize more than others. If you are healthy and your digestive system works well, you may be at higher risk for breaking down this product in your stomach and intestines. Please understand that it is impossible for the manufacturers of Splenda to make any guarantees based on their limited animal data.
If you feel that Splenda affects you adversely, it is valid. Don’t let someone convince you that it is all in your head. You know your body better than anyone else.
How to Determine if Splenda is Harming You
The best way to determine if Splenda or sucralose is affecting you is to perform an elimination/challenge with it. First eliminate it and other artificial sweeteners from your diet completely for a period of one to two weeks. After this period reintroduce it in sufficient quantity.
For example, use it in your beverage in the morning, and eat at least two sucralose containing products the remainder of the day. On this day, avoid other artificial sweeteners so that you are able to differentiate which one may be causing a problem for you. Do this for a period of one to three days. Take notice of how your body is feeling, particularly if it feels different than when you were artificial sweetener free.
Splenda May Still Be Harming You
If you complete the elimination/challenge trial described above and do not notice any changes then it appears you are able to tolerate Splenda acutely. However, please understand that you are not out of the woods yet.
The entire issue of long-term safety has never been established. Let’s look at the facts again:
Considering that Splenda bears more chemical similarity to DDT than it does to sugar, are you willing to bet your health on this data? Remember that fat soluble substances, such as DDT, can remain in your fat for decades and devastate your health.
If the above facts don’t concern because you believe the FDA would not ever allow a toxic substance into the market then read on.
Do You Really Believe These People Are Going to Protect You?
Please consider that the only organizations between you and potentially toxic side effects are the FDA and the manufacturers of sucralose (Tate & Lyle) and of Splenda (McNeil Nutritionals).
The FDA has a long standing history of ineffective screening and rampant conflict of interests as demonstrated in their inability to identify Vioxx as too dangerous to be on the market. This mistake costs 55,000 people their lives.
Now the point I want you to understand here, because it is really important, is that Splenda is not a drug and is only a food additive. As such the number of studies required to receive FDA approval is substantially less than drug. Vioxx had an order of magnitude of more comprehensive clinical trials than Splenda ever did, and despite this rigorous approval process it still killed 55,000 people.
So, now you have the primary concerns I have about Splenda and the choices is yours.
Read Splenda Horror Stories
We have more people on our site that have reported adverse reaction to Splenda than were formally studied in the research submitted for FDA approval. It would seem this collection of data is in some ways superior to the data submitted to the FDA for Splenda approval.
You can help us continue our Splenda research by supplying us with your own experience. If you or anyone you know have had an adverse reaction to Splenda or sucralose containing products please tell us your story.
Dr. Mercola’s Comment:
Don’t let these large companies fool you. There is no magic alternative to sugar when it comes to sweeteners. You simply can not have your cake and eat it too when it comes to this area. It is far too early to tell, as not enough people have consumed this product to observe large numbers of adverse effects.
However, I have had a number of patients in our Wellness Center who have had some severe migraines and even seizures possibly from consuming this product.
My advice?
AVOID Sucralose.
I am fond of telling people that if something tastes sweet you probably should spit it out as it is not likely to be to good for you. This of course, is a humorous exaggeration, but for most people who struggle with chronic illness, it is likely to be a helpful guide.
PLEASE note this article is being written in 2000. This is one of the first comprehensive clear investigative reports and warnings on sucralose on the Internet.
Comment by Ed smith — 10/6/2007 @ 4:18 pm
[…] “Our study has shown that aspartame is a multipotential carcinogenic compound whose…”read more | digg […]
Pingback by The Mouth Revolution Blog » No, It’s For Real: Aspartame Causes Cancer! — 10/7/2007 @ 9:00 am
[…] No, It s For Real: Aspartame Causes CancerThere s been a ton of debate over the years about whether or not aspartame causes cancer. Based on the evidence out there I ve always thought it likely true. Well, it s getting more and more obvious as additional, larger studies are … […]
Pingback by Cancer Resource Directory » Blog Archive » Throat Cancer - Spike for the cure to breat cancer - News 14 Carolina — 10/7/2007 @ 12:55 pm
[…] brought this outburst on? It was this blog article. “No, It’s for Real: Aspartame Causes Cancer”, the post proclaims. They’re […]
Pingback by The Big Room (and the little things in it) » Blog Archive » Libel! Blasphemy! Slander!… — 10/7/2007 @ 11:52 pm
Forgive me for being confused. This study has as its minimum level 20 mg/kg of body weight. To meet even their minimum levels, I would have to drink 35 glasses of Coke Zero everyday. (58mg/glass @ 100 kg)
I agree aspartame probably causes cancer in large amounts, but anything does if taken in excess. So the comment “at or below the amounts approved for human consumption” in the above article is seriously misleading.
Even the smallest dosage in the study is close to an order of magnitude above what even a heavy diet soda drinker would consume in a day. For myself, I am concerned, but I also enjoy the experience, so I’m not inclined to change just because of FUD.
Has anyone actually done a study at a realistic 3mg/kg? Link please. I’d honestly like to know.
Comment by Altern8Life — 10/8/2007 @ 3:10 am
Everything that is not natural causes cancer. I don’t know why they don’t stop inventing warm water once for all. And then they put millions into stupid researches. And they spend millions to discover that french fries causes cancer, than they spend another millions to discover that some cookies causes cancer. I’m sick of all smart asses. I guess that artificial food ate everyones brains already.
Comment by Claude — 10/17/2007 @ 11:19 am
Hi All,
I was an avid 6-12 can a day Diet Coke drinker. I didn’t think it was a problem until every afternoon I would go into fits of rage, have hypoglycemic attacks and when I tried to stop drinking it, I would have withdrawal symptoms, cravings etc. Seriously it took 2 weeks for me to be completely “off” the Diet Coke without obsessing over not having one. I have been drinking the stuff pretty steady since the 80’s and I would rebuff anyone that said it was not good.
It was worse than when I stopped smoking (which I did cold turkey)8 years ago. This stuff is poison. It is derived from rat poison. Can’t give specifics, but there are 3 class action suits pending in California for kids that have dropped dead after being in a sports game and had sudden heart attack. Aspartame can cause the blood vessels to constrict and cause the heart to stop. Monsanto and Dupont and other big name companies have been named in the suits.
Aspartame can mimic several diseases ie, Multiple sclerosis, diabetes, parkinsons, fibromyalgia, migraines, etc. I have had clients that were avid coke drinkers who suffered from fibromyalgia and migraines and after just a couple of sessions of CST and stopping the diet drinks, the migraines stopped along with the other symptoms.
It is not just a cancer causing drug, it can cause sudden death because aspartame converts to formaldehyde when it gets hot. If you are coke or pepsi drinker, have you ever noticed that sometimes it just doesn’t taste right? it has probably been out in the heat and has converted to toxins. Not to mention the aluminimum of the cans, they actually disintegrate when they have been sitting for a long time and leach into the soda, so now you have aspartame/formaldehyde and aluminum…oooohhhh what a combo.
So I am convert…thanks for letting me share. Great site by the way!
Comment by horsehealer — 10/31/2007 @ 2:50 am
varrolcn
Comment by dronvil — 11/19/2007 @ 6:45 am
The Ramazzini Study showed conclusively aspartame is a multipotential carcinogen. The second Ramazzini Study released in 2007 showed it only takes a small amount to cause cancer and if the baby survives from a pregnant woman using it the baby can grow up and have cancer. Aspartame is an abortifacient and teratogen.
But this has always been known by the FDA. Their own FDA toxicologist, Dr. Adrian Gross, testified on August 1, 1985, Senate, that aspartame violated the Delaney Amendment which forbids approving anything you know will cause cancer, because it caused brain tumors and brain cancer. The Bressler Report, FDA audit on http://www.dorway.com shows how Searle, original manufacturer, tried to keep it from the FDA. FDA asked for their indictment but both US Prosecutors hired on with the defense team and the statute of limitations expired. Still the FDA revoked the petition for approval (www.mpwhi.com). See the aspartame documentary, Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World, http://www.soundandfury.tv where James Turner, Atty, explains how Don Rumsfeld got it on the market when the FDA said “NO”! But aspartame does more than cause cancer. It has an entire medical text: Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic, http://www.sunsentpress.com by H. J. Robert, M.D., over 1000 pages of the horrors caused by aspartame. Also Russell Blaylock, M.D., http://www.russellblaylockmd.com wrote Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills, His CD, The Truth About Aspartame explains the Ramazzini Study in detail eand how industry’s rebuttal failed. The truth is out.
Betty Martini, D.Hum, Founder Mission Possible Intl bettym19@mindspring.com
Comment by Dr. Betty Martini, D.Hum — 1/6/2008 @ 11:19 pm
Did you know you can kill yourself by drinking too much dihydrogen monoxide? A woman accidentally killed herself during a contest recently. The point of the contest? To see how much of this dangerous poison she could drink. If only the radio station that sponsored the contest knew how dangerous this stuff was before they ran this contest. Maybe that woman would still be alive today. It’s probably the FDA’s fault. Or Donald Rumsfeld’s. Or Mickey Mouse’s. I heard Kermit the Frog had a hand in it, too. We need to get those money grubbing bastards before they kill any more!!!
POP QUIZ QUESTION #1 (from one of Dr. Martini’s old med school quizzes) —
Here’s a list of natural compounds:
a) tobacco b) strychnine c) hemlock d) seawater e) mouse droppings
For five points, tell me which one(s) are safe to consume.
Today’s Helpful Hint:
– Dr. Gibson
Comment by Dr. Gibson — 1/28/2008 @ 10:48 pm
Check this out. Warning: photos are very graphic.
http;//myaspartameexperiment.com
Comment by Bryanth — 3/13/2008 @ 4:18 pm
The American Cancer society, the FDA, the World Health Organization, and the Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives of the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization.
While I’m skeptical of the FDA sometimes, all of these organizations have said that aspartame shows no significant link towards causing cancer.
With that said it’s like everything else. I’ve heard that baked bread, Pizza, and anything and everything causes cancer. Like many other people have said…maybe so maybe not. I wouldn’t live my life by it, but at the same time I wouldn’t go out of my way to consume as much aspartame as possible.
Also, it can cause or mimic some diseases in people with its side effects. The important thing to remember is the “exception to the rule” rule of thumb. Just b/c someone knows someone who’s had something caused by aspartame doesn’t mean this correlates to the entire population of people who intake aspartame. There are always exceptions to the rule.
Comment by M — 3/13/2008 @ 11:03 pm
You can check on the National Cancer Institutes website (www.cancer.gov), there is no link between cancer and sweeteners such as Aspartame and Acesulfame Potassium. Or you can call their 800 number at 1-800-4CANCER.
Comment by A — 5/1/2008 @ 2:28 am