“My Aspartame Experiment” by Victoria Inness-Brown
Molecular structure of Aspartame
I recently wrote an article on my first hand research experience on the potential carcinogenicity of Aspartame - the artificial sweetener used in thousands of everyday products, particularly diet products. It was titled “Aspartame is safe … really!”
One of www.geneticsandhealth.com readers author Carol Guilford sent me the following interesting link to a piece of research on aspartame carried out by scientist Victoria Inness-Brown. I cannot comment on the science behind Victoria’s study as I have not investigated it. However, the results are quite thought provoking.
Here is the quoted introduction to Victoria’s research by Carol, followed by the link to Victoria’s results:
“In any such study of even a few hundred test animals, it takes no more than a dozen or so of them to exhibit a particular lesion… to associate with the test agent, i.e., aspartame or its related chemicals.”
Dr. Adrian Gross, FDA toxicologist in a letter to Senator Howard Metzenbaum, Oct. 30, 1986.
When Victoria Inness-Brown contacted me about “explosive information” concerning aspartame (Equal, NutraSweet) the controversial, artificial, chemical sweetener, I didn’t know what to expect. Despite overwhelming scientific evidence of aspartame’s danger to human health (tires have been recalled for less) it remains in 6,000 food, drink and medicinal products.
Who could imagine a private citizen would do an aspartame experiment with 108 rats for 2 years and 8 months?
The late Dr. Adrian Gross explained that rodent experiments are the means to find out what a particular substance will do to human beings.
Look at Victoria’s pictures of her animals that ingested the equivalent amount of aspartame (in human terms) of less than one diet coke a day, until their spontaneous death. Importantly, the control groups, those fed no aspartame were free from visible effects.
The artificial sweetener, Aspartame, was approved by the FDA, in 1981. By the 1990’s, the FDA had a list of 92 symptoms reported to them by 10,000 consumers, a list revealed to the public under the Freedom of Information Act.
Personally, I have read thousands of cases from aspartame victims, many who post on Yahoo’s Aspartame Victim Support Group list, but Victoria’s photographs, the first ever to be released from any study, give meaning to the hypothesis, “A picture is worth a thousand words.”
Following is Victoria’s gutsy account of why she did her experiment, the protocol she used to conduct it and the remarkable pictures of the rats.
http://myaspartameexperiment.com/
Elaine Warburton www.geneticsandhealth.com
Tags: Aspartame, cancer, Chromosome abnormalities, DNA, Genetic Ethics, Genetic TestingRelated Stories
POSTED IN: Aspartame, Chromosome abnormalities, DNA, General Genetics and Health, Genetic Ethics, Genetic Testing, cancer
.gif)
18 opinions for “My Aspartame Experiment” by Victoria Inness-Brown
Scott
Feb 24, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Holy Crap I just read through that experiment web page. I’ve always been skeptical of the whole aspartame theory but this brings it into a better perspective and honestly I don’t think I’ll be drinking as much diet sodas…if any at all from now. In fact I’ll probably check most everything I eat or buy for aspartame. I’ll be doing a bit on this on healthandmen.com and link back to you.
Rich Murray
Feb 25, 2008 at 12:09 am
note on trailers and other formaldehyde sources: Rich Murray 2008.02.23
So far, I haven’t seen anyone else connect these black dots, and ask, “Since formaldehyde is formaldehyde, whether from trailers, dark wines and liquors, tobacco or wood smoke, faulty stoves and heaters, or aspartame, then all
these sources have to be discussed publicly, vigorously, accurately, now, since it is neurotoxic and carcinogenic, impairing fertility and increasing
birth defects — right to life issues, anyone? —
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1455 — FEMA slow to
safety test Katrina toxic trailers, Charles Babington of Associated Press —
1 ppm formaldehyde in air is about half the daily dose from 3 cans aspartame diet soda and ten times the 1999 EPA alarm level for drinking water: Murray 2007.07.23 — Rich Murray rmforall@comcast.net 505-501-2298 1943 Otowi
Road, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505
formaldehyde in FEMA trailers and other sources (aspartame, dark wines and liquors, tobacco smoke): Murray 2008.01.30
http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2008_01_01_archive.htm
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1508
The FEMA trailers give about the same amount of formaldehyde daily as from a quart of dark wine or liquor, or two quarts (6 12-oz cans) of aspartame diet soda, from their over 1 tenth gram methanol impurity (one part in 10,000),
which the body quickly makes into formaldehyde — enough to be the major cause of “morning after” alcohol hangovers.
Methanol and formaldehyde also result from many fruits and vegetables, tobacco and wood smoke, heater and vehicle exhaust, household chemicals and cleaners, cosmetics, and new cars, drapes, carpets, furniture, particleboard, mobile homes, buildings, leather… so all these sources add
up and interact with many other toxic chemicals.
BN Ames and LS Gold, 1998, have presented detailed information that there is no increase in recent decades for most cancers, and that common carcinogens do not result in significant exposures to the average human population.
However, individuals are not average — each person has a unique genetic makeup, resulting in a huge range of variation of vulnerability to specific chemicals, as is well evidenced in the case of methanol, formaldehyde, and formic acid, especially with regard to behavioral effects.
Each is subject to very wide ranges of exposure levels.
Many are in especially vulnerable groups, depending on diet, obesity, sex, exercise, life stress, age from conception to very old, unusually severe toxic exposures, injuries, and diseases.
It is clear that a variety of multiple chemical sensitivity syndromes do exist, often with remarkable hypersensitivity.
Methanol, formaldehyde, and formic acid toxicity are unusual, in that humans are far more vulnerable than any other mammal, as much as ten to sixty-fold, which complicates the utility of animal data.
The unusually long human life span also increases the role of long-term chronic low-level exposure.
Aspartame, Body Building Supplements And What You Need To Know!
Feb 25, 2008 at 12:20 am
[…] this stuff be?”. Well if you really want to know there is a great article and link over at Genetics and Health that will tell you about the suspected dangers of Aspartame and some chilling facts that will make […]
John E. Garst, Ph.D. (Medicinal Chemistry, Pharmacology, and Toxicology)
Feb 25, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Hi everyone:
In work to be revealed next month, I will show unequivocally that the admirable efforts of Victoria Inness-Brown are unfortunately for her in fact invalid. No doubt she has proven tumor development, but that tumor development is not caused by aspartame. What will really be revealed is that she has made the same error as did Searle in their original studies, as many other scientists, including most recently both Soffritti et al. 2006 and 2007 studies that found similar tumors. Once this fundamental error, not of methodology, but of design is revealed and understood, it will become evident that there are no scientific papers that provide any viable evidence that aspartame has any health effects in all animals tested. Moreover, it will become clear that “aspartame is perfectly safe used as directed in healthy people.”
John E. Garst, Ph.D. (Medicinal Chemistry, Pharmacology, and Toxicology)
Sugar Alcohol A Sweeter, Safer Alternative?
Feb 27, 2008 at 5:01 am
[…] If you haven’t had a chance to weigh the facts about Aspartame then I highly suggest you read my post and follow the links at the bottom to learn more. If you truly want to live a healthy life you need to read Elaine’s Aspartame posts. […]
Bob
Mar 3, 2008 at 5:54 pm
I have recently started doing my own research into the safely of artificial sweeteners after a family member of mine developed tumors just under the skin. He is in his mid thirties and is a chronic diet soft-drink user.
I have been disheartened to found that the products that most American use and think of as harmless could be far from it. It is quite sad to think that some people would possibility jeopardize the health of other in the name of maximized profits.
It is very interesting to see at most of the site questioning the safety of aspartame a lone voice discrediting the information or first-hand accounts presented. That voice is John E. Garst, Ph.D.. He is claiming to be a “Medicinal Chemistry, Pharmacology, and Toxicology”.
John E. Garst, Ph.D discredits Victoria Inness-Brown study with vague comments. He completely over looks the CONTROL GROUP in his opinion. He does not give any references to confirm what he states. Given whom he claims to be the scientific references would be very obtainable.
It is my thinking that John E. Garst, Ph.D is nothing more than a shill the chemical companies that manufacture aspartame. It my opinion one should take what he says with a grain of salt.
John E. Garst, Ph.D. (Medicinal Chemistry, Pharmacology, and Toxicology)
Mar 4, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Hi again:
I appreciate the reader’s interest and even his healthy skepticism, but until my presentations this and next month before major national meetings, I will not prematurely announce my discoveries especially at a website; Science magazine maybe, but not a website. FYI, I have no connection to any company or any interest except in understanding the truth about aspartame safety. This “internet aspartame conspiracy fiasco” has persisted way too long. You are correct though that I am the only voice; that is, because what I will reveal has not been recognized by either side in this aspartame argument, but the consequences are as I suggest overwhelming in impact, because they are so simple and so logical. FYI, the claims of tumors by Soffritti and even Victoria Inness-Brown are unequivocally true, but they have little to do with aspartame, because of fatal control errors. For that reason the “control” group used by all is practically speaking irrelevant.
Many times determining and using the proper control group is the essence of science. Let me share this information about lovastatin (anti-cholesterol drug) approval. Rats given lovastatin in a similar control versus treated experimental design showed severe liver toxicity that would have ordinarily prevented approval. However, when mevalonate (the cholesterol precursor) was added to both control and treated animals, things changed. Mevalonate had little effect on the control group but it completely eliminated toxicity seen in the treated group. Consequently the toxicity all resided in the fact that this drug lowered cholesterol far too much presenting real toxicity because of the absence of sufficient cholesterol. In this case the drug worked perfectly doing what was expected, but too well. In this case the simple control versus treated design was inappropriate.
The choice of control is critical. In the case of aspartame, the proper control has never been used, not by Searle, by Soffritti et al. nor even by Victoria Inness-Brown. I don’t in any way fault, but actually applaud Victoria Inness-Brown for trying the experiment; many talented scientists have messed up for over twenty years on this, so she is by no means the first.
I will attempt to get back to your website and provide all the essential facts after my upcoming meetings. Suffice it to say though that experts in this field who know what I will report agree with my comments about its consequences that “aspartame is perfectly safe used as directed in healthy people.”
John E. Garst, Ph.D. (Medicinal Chemistry, Pharmacology, and Toxicology)
Rich Murray
Mar 5, 2008 at 1:31 am
I look forward to all the details from the indubitably highly qualified and competent John E. Garst about fundamental control group problems in some aspartame toxicity studies.
Meanwhile, I offer a very long review of two recent important studies on the toxicity of formaldehyde and formic acid, both inevitable products in the body of the 11% methanol part of aspartame.
It is not likely that the huge amount of research on the severe toxicity of formaldehyde and formic acid will be overturned.
Much methanol toxicity research has not included the many common sources of methanol and formaldehyde in humans, such as dark wines and liquors, tobacco and wood smoke, faulty stoves and heaters, vehicle exhaust, particleboard, mobile homes, and many more.
methanol impurity in alcohol drinks [ and aspartame ] is turned into neurotoxic formic acid, prevented by folic acid, re Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, BM Kapur, DC Lehotay, PL Carlen at U. Toronto, Alc Clin Exp Res 2007 Dec. plain text: detailed biochemistry, CL Nie et al. 2007.07.18: Murray 2008.02.24
http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2008_02_01_archive.htm
Sunday, February 24, 2008
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1524
[ Rich Murray comments: As a medical layman volunteer information activist for aspartame and related toxicity issues since January 1999,
I note with appreciation the remarkable exponential progress on all fronts, including a rapidly emerging consensus about the primary
importance of all toxicity challenges for our world.
This lengthy review features in detail two quite different, revolutionary contributions, from Canada, and England and China.
It is indicative of our times that the CL Nie et al. study, 2007 appears in a free, open access journal– indeed, as all life and death information must.
Following rather vigorously, indeed blindly, the imperatives of single-minded, profit-driven capitalist competition — manipulating adroitly research, education, media, citizens, governments — many great global corporations have inevitably created results that oppose the common good. Alcohol and tobacco are well known.
Realistically, any further manipulations can only lead to inevitable and even sudden corporate meltdowns, in the context of an unfettered, cooperative, democratic global information forum,
the Internet.
Now, it is as easy and cheap to compose and instantly post a 30-page review as 3 pages a decade ago — and such reviews are archived forever in multiple collections, open via global search engines to a billion Net citizens.
Perforce, and increasingly happily, all societal entities will have to operate by high and shared voluntary universal standards for the common good. ]…..
Do visit the URL for the rest.
Callista
Mar 16, 2008 at 9:29 am
I have read Victoria’s experiment in disbelief. Her naivety and ignorance baffles the mind. All the problems that arose are common amongst pet rats and are nothing to do with aspartame consumption.
The experiment was conducted with poorly bred animals acquired from a pet shop, not PFS and it is common knowledge that rats from dubious breeding lines will be prone to developing tumours. Also, mycoplasma, head tilts, zymbals gland abscesses and tumours are common in pet rat as is hind limb paralysis in older rats. The bleeding eyes to which she refers are simply porphyrin stained eyes which indicate a stressed or ill rat.
The simple fact that those rats were left to suffer in her care and did not receive veterinary care only prove one thing, that she is guilty of animal cruelty.
She has not proven that aspartame causes health problems, rats get those health problems regardless. That woman should not be applauded by any means.
Rich Murray
Mar 16, 2008 at 11:42 pm
Hello Callista,
What about the 48 controls rats, who had almost none of these symptoms?
http://myaspartameexperiment.com/
“Experimental group of 30 males, 30 females. Control group of 24 males, 24 females; a total of 108 rats.
Type of feed
Kaytee’s Supreme Fortified Daily Blend for Rat & Mouse and Kaytee’s Supreme Fortified Daily Blend for Hamster & Gerbil from a local feed store.”
“I decided on putting the NutraSweet in their drinking water, at the rate of two packets — a total of 80 mg of aspartame –- per each 8 oz of water.”
” I bought my rats at PetCo and bred them for my experiment. I purchased rats of different colors, to get a genetic variety. I also attempted to breed rats that were not brothers and sisters, to avoid in-breeding mutation.
I found most of the observable symptoms occurred during the last third of the rat’s life-span, illuminating the information that the adverse effects of aspartame are cumulative.
I chose to allow my rats to live out their natural lives. I honor them for their sacrifice and for showing the way for the rest of us.
I put NutraSweet in their water starting in March, 2002, and the last of them died in November 2004. The experiment lasted a total of two years, eight months.
Even though I had read the Bressler Report, I was struck by the number and size of the growths. Eleven females and one male developed tumors. That’s 37% of the females on aspartame.”
“1. Three female rats in the control group of 48 had small tumors.”
Similar results for the many other serious symptoms — namely rats fed small amounts of aspartame daily lifelong had many more of each symptom than the control rats.
The report mentions other confirming research, as well as the toxic products of aspartame that are fully capable of causing these symptoms.
Victoria is a highly intelligent and successful professional:
http://victoriainnessbrown.com/
I hope you will examine her report carefully.
In mutual service, Rich Murray
Hawaii Senate Health Committee will consider resolution SCR191 by Sen.
Suzanne Chun Oakland, and 10 other of 25 Senators, to have FDA ban aspartame
and for National Academy of Sciences to review research: Murray 2008.03.14
http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2008_03_01_archive.htm
Friday, March 14, 2008
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1527
“Of course, everyone chooses, as a natural priority, to enjoy
peace, joy, and love by helping to find, quickly share, and positively
act upon evidence about healthy and safe food, drink, and
environment.”
Rich Murray, MA Room For All rmforall@comcast.net
505-501-2298 1943 Otowi Road, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505
http://RMForAll.blogspot.com new primary archive
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/messages
group with 121 members, 1,527 posts in a public archive
Christine
Mar 18, 2008 at 5:46 pm
All hail the mighty John E. Garst, Ph.D who knows some magic reason that study rats would get enormous tumors while control rats were left almost unscathed.
I bet that while John E. Garst, Ph.D is hanging out on his yacht with all the money he’s being paid, he’s NOT drinking Diet Coke!
This whole buildup of “I have this supposed information that I’m not going to tell you” is designed to create doubt with those who are not yet convinced so they stop doing their own research.
However, those of us who believe in aspartame’s toxicity have one simple way to prove it to the disbelievers. Try going without it for 90 days.
I was skeptical for sure, but I was willing to try it out. I drank my last Diet Pepsi on September 11th, 2006. Within the first couple of days my appetite was cut in half and has remained that way. I can be happy with about half the food I used to eat. The other most noticeable effect was that I had pretty bad lower back pain and after about a month I realized that I no longer had that pain. The last effect I can remember is that I used to get little dizzy spells which would cause me to mis-step or sway. I never actually tripped or anything, but those have stopped completely.
Of course in order to completely prove these things I would really need to drink a Diet Pepsi and see how I feel but now that I’m off the aspartame, drinking anything with it in there repulses me. The taste is horrible to me and I don’t even understand why I started drinking it in the first place.
But you don’t have to believe me. Anyone who is a regular aspartame consumer should evaluate their personal health and make a list of all the random things you suffer. Then, stop drinking diet soda (and check all the labels on stuff you consume, especially sugar-free and no added sugar products) for 90 days and re-visit your list and see if anything has gone away.
My dad was regularly drinking these flavored waters from Walmart and he was under the impression that they were very healthy and safe. He offered me a taste and I immediately tasted the aspartame, but they had hid it under the name “Neotame” which doesn’t require the phenylketuronics warning that he looks for. After I pointed that out, he stopped drinking those completely and within the first week, his energy level was noticeably improved and his kidney pain had vanished.
Anyway, this is a subject I am passionate about and since I don’t believe everything I read on the internet, I tried it myself and I am now firmly a believer in the danger of this sweetener.
John E. Garst, Ph.D. (Medicinal Chemistry, Pharmacology, and Toxicology)
Mar 19, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Hi all:
Sorry Christine, no yacht, but on my own, I am near the ocean. Well the information I have promised for weeks was coming is now openly available. Sorry for the delay, but it could not be released until after my presentation. And I have just concluded presenting my discovery this morning at a platform session on “Health risks and food safety” at the (National and International) Society of Toxicology 2008 meeting currently ongoing in Seattle. This organization is the premier group of toxicologists from all around the world. Anyway now my discovery can be made public to all. (FYI, toxicology is the science of poisons.) The title of my presentation was CRITICAL FOLATE PROBLEM WITH “LIFETIME” ASPARTAME AND RELATED STUDIES.
Soffritti’s two “lifetime” studies are simply invalid. His results are likely to be absolutely correct, but his conclusions are absolutely biased, but so are virtually all other studies of aspartame all the way back to and including the original Searle work. Here is why: it is a simple error of design that even a high school science fair student would understand.
All studies of aspartame to date have used a common simple experimental design. The experimental design used by all these papers (regardless of rat species and that goes for the “my-aspartame-experiment” too) is a simple control versus treated design, where aspartame was provided in the food at dosages from 0 through various dosages to high values. Zero dosing served as the control, whereas the various doses served as the treated animals. Most of you readers are aware that methanol (and its oxidation products formaldehyde, and formic acid) seem(s) to be the issue most frequently raised about aspartame. And that actually is why these studies are invalid.
Methanol like ethanol (very well-known fact) alters the disposition of the vitamin folate. Amongst the many ways they work, one is to enhance excretion of folate and hence deplete it over time. That makes the treated animals very susceptible to diseases of folate deficiency. Hence, as aspartame hydrolyzes to methanol, that methanol acts in a variety of ways to directly deplete and to otherwise also diminish availability of this critical vitamin. But this depletion and likely reduction of availability of other folate molecules occurs just in the treated group, not at all in the control group. So the design is imbalanced, and hence invalid. In the case of “my-aspartame-experiment,” folate deficiency was likely in her rats, as it was just in the treatment group that methanol-induced folate deficiency arose. Actually her discovery of tumors would be expected.
Moreover, unrealized by Soffritti et al is that folate deficiency likely induced in his treated rats likely is responsible for the semi-dose dependent relationship, because folate deficiency, not aspartame per se causes leukemia, lymphoma, and mammary cancer. Actually folate deficiency is linked to development of cervix, colorectal, lung, esophagus. brain, pancreas, leukemia, lymphoma, breast (mammary) tumors. Many other of the 20+ purported “aspartame diseases” are either part of this group or are related to folate processing in some way (methionine, homocysteine issues). But you must understand aspartame is not toxic; folate is depleted by many other substances, including ethanol and even antibiotics. That is why it is a vitamin and why vitamin means “amine required for life”; those who fail to take daily supplements of folate are susceptible to many food and environmental substances, aspartame is just one of many, but you must realize there are now no studies suggesting any harm from aspartame. No drug alone can be deemed responsible for tumors, if the user fails to consume daily multiple vitamins; that is their responsibility.
But that wasn’t the only Soffritti issue. Two other fatal experimental issues were neglected by Soffritti et al too. Those are that (1) Sprague-Dawley rats are highly susceptible to folate insufficiency as they age (a fact scientifically evident even at less than 12 months of age for a “lifetime” study) and that the rat leukemia virus is endemic in this Sprague-Dawley strain of rat, making their use for any leukemia research questionable too.
Searle can be easily forgiven this design error, because their work was conducted over 20 years ago, before much of this was even known, but the Soffritti papers are less easily forgiven, since the methanol depletion of folate was discovered and reported in 1981. In fact the readers should note that as important as folate is in metabolizing the methanol-formaldehyde produced formate, this vitamin went totally unmentioned in the Soffritti papers. In this day and age to not know how important folate is for metabolism of methanol is a serious error in and of itself. But to Soffritti et al’s credit is that no one else caught this fatal error either.
But more important to the safety issues for aspartame critics is that perhaps the biggest objection to aspartame, the so-called Bressler report, stems from the Searle work. Let me point out that if the Searle work was in retrospect conducted improperly, the Bressler report and all the other criticism of it stemming from the Searle studies are also NULL & VOID too. Consequently all the scientific work suggesting any harm from aspartame is now dismissible, including all the claims of Martini, Blaylock and Roberts; all are based on the original and now invalid studies. Most of the other arguments against aspartame are also invalid, because they fail to note the role of folate too.
Suffice it to say, if anyone suffers any reaction to aspartame, there is a very high likelihood that they are either directly folate deficient or have some other biochemical issue with the folate system. The latter is actually not uncommon. In fact one paper suggests only one in five women take vitamin supplements effectively. Folate was added to grain products (flour, etc) in 1998. Before that many Americans had folate deficiency as indicated by the marked (>30%) reduction seen in neural tube disorders, which that supplementation improved. It is possible that some folate deficient people may respond with tumors, but not just from aspartame, but equally if not more so from ethanol and a whole variety of commonly used drugs that also deplete or affect folate. That said, many people are still folate deficient and perhaps another round of folate supplementation is warranted; this matter it is being investigated right now. Much more could be said, but the take home message is simply that “aspartame is perfectly safe, used as directed, in healthy people, but many people are simply folate deficient or have their own issues with folate and may be termed unhealthy. Very few of these folate issues cannot be overcome by proper daily folate supplementation as is available to all in multiple vitamins.
John E. Garst, Ph.D. (Medicinal Chemistry, Pharmacology, and Toxicology)
Christine
Mar 20, 2008 at 6:13 pm
I imagine that you were hoping me and any others reading would see your long post and glaze over and not read it. I can’t speak for the others, but I read it quite thoroughly which is why my reply took a day to get to.
That said, it doesn’t appear that you are arguing very effectively for aspartame. You are in fact acknowledging that the consumption of this man-made chemical leads to the symptoms reports. You are just presenting a different theory as to how it causes the problems we experienced.
I have found references to your folate deficiency claims dating back at least in October of 2007 so I don’t understand why there had to be secrecy, by the way.
Furthermore, do you have any actual scientific evidence or proof of this? Have aspartame-dosed rats and control rats been tested for folate deficiency?
Also, are you trying to BLAME us consumers for not taking a supplement to replace the vitamin that aspartame apparently obliterates? Do you work for or have stock in a vitamin company? Also, if this is true, someone should immediately start an experiment with aspartame rats, aspartame+folate rats, and control rats. (I’m not a scientist or doctor)
I apologize for being slightly rambling, but I read your post with an open mind and it gives me a lot to think about. Some parts of it make sense. I know that the body uses cravings and such in order to get the nutrients it needs and if I was lacking in folate, that could be why I was eating so much food… trying to replace it.
I still don’t see how this revelation of yours is supposed to convince us that aspartame is completely safe to consume and should stay on the market, but maybe you can go to the next step and explain this?
John E. Garst, Ph.D. (Medicinal Chemistry, Pharmacology, and Toxicology)
Mar 21, 2008 at 4:05 am
Sorry, I really wasn’t trying to snow you. So let me try to keep it simple and to the subject at hand, that is, my-aspartame-experiment. Her rats (and Soffritti’s rats) developed cancers of many types, because they developed a folate deficiency that would not have appeared in and thus be seen in the control group. That imbalanced cancer was caused by the previously unrecognized poor experimental design. The cancer was not caused by aspartame’s methanol, but by the body’s need to have the folate to prevent the disease via appropriately methylating and thus controlling the DNA. Folate is a vitamin; remember vitamin means “required for life.” Scurvy was an ultimately fatal disease caused by vitamin C deficiency. Cancer was no more caused by methanol depleting folate than was scurvy caused by the long trips at sea, which depleted vitamin C. Besides many things other than methanol also deplete folate. Insufficient folate is the cause of these cancers.
Christine
Mar 21, 2008 at 4:13 am
I already understand that. However, I do not understand how we are supposed to get to this conclusion that aspartame is safe to consume. Are you saying that it IS or IS NOT safe? Are you saying that aspartame is safe IF one also takes folate supplements? What you are saying makes sense since I crave carbs like crazy when I used to drink sodas with aspartame and that could have been my body’s way of trying to replenish the folate since may cereals (which I loved to snack on) and other wheat products are fortified with folic acid.
Are you also saying that in order to do a proper study, one would need to have a third study group of rats which consumed aspartame and were also given an appropriate and reasonable dose of folic acid added to their diet?
Also, what about all the other chemicals that aspartame breaks down into? You’ve theoretically covered the methanol… what about the formaldehyde? Lastly, can you attribute the entire list of 90-something symptoms to the folate deficiency or could some of these items be attributed to one of the other chemicals?
And of course, you haven’t told us what soda YOU drink. :)
John E. Garst, Ph.D. (Medicinal Chemistry, Pharmacology, and Toxicology)
Mar 25, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Hi Christine and all:
Sorry for the delay; I have been out of town and am still trying to catch up.
I am saying that aspartame is perfectly safe. You and all bodies need 400 micrograms/day of folate. This is really a very small amount. Aspartame (from its methanol and actually methanol produced formaldehyde) does deplete some slight amount of your folate, but so does the methanol from apple and tomato juice and so does any alcoholic beverage (acetaldehyde). Many things adversely affect folate or even its intestinal (bug-based) biosynthesis including various antibiotics, so the best way to deal with deficiency is folate supplements.
While I cannot recall the specific source of hand, one of the folate deficiency papers claimed part of the explanation for continued folate deficiency is the anticarb craze deterring people from eating the very products that are folate enriched, like sweet rolls, etc.
As to your second paragraph-yes the proper controls were not used in all aspartame rodent experiments. Given that folate deficiency causes the very tumors and cancers reported, proper folate supplementation would likely see no tumors. This and/or the shorter duration of some studies may also explain the papers not finding tumors/cancers.
As to your third paragraph. The methanol from aspartame is hydrolyzed to formaldehyde. It is actually the formaldehyde that reacts with the folate, just as acetaldehyde from ethanol reacts with folate too. But formaldehyde reactions are not all bad; they play an important role in much essential biochemistry. Overconsuming ethanol causes a greater incidence of breast cancer in women; folate supplementation amongst overconsumers lowers tumor incidence, presumably by replacing lost folate. As to the symptom issue, most of the purported symptoms are not substantiated by controlled science. While a good portion of the claimed issues (leukemia, lymphoma, breast cancer, etc) are linkable directly to folate deficiency or insufficiency, there are other valid explanations that involve various related issues. Many people have altered folate enzymes (called folate polymorphisms) that increase or decrease their susceptibility to folate issues. They can actually make some people less susceptible to leukemia for instance, but more susceptible to cardiovascular disease. Actually one polymorphism might even explain the so-called aspartame headache, for this has actually been connected to headache separately. In those people these other headache issues can be prevented by folate supplementation, so perhaps headache from aspartame is a symptom of a direct or indirect folate issue?
Here is more on the aspects of the issue. For folate deficiency issues see for example http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/117/4/1418. However many cancers and tumors are also driven by folate deficiency http://www.ebmonline.org/cgi/reprint/229/10/988. For 453 references on this go to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez and type “folate deficiency,cancer” (without the quotes) in the search line and explore the listings.
FYI, I favor diet caffeine free Pepsi, but that is a taste thing for me. I used to favor the diet Pepsi with caffeine (black cans), but caffeine metabolism is reduced and becomes an issue as you age. FYI caffeine metabolism produces two formaldehydes per molecule and most all adverse effects of caffeine can be prevented with folate too.
John E. Garst, Ph.D. (Medicinal Chemistry, Pharmacology, and Toxicology)
Steve
Apr 10, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Dr. Garst,
I was wondering along the same lines along which your last comment noted. I was aware that metabolism of caffeine produced formaldehyde.
So I was thinking that if people who were so very concerned about aspartame switched to caffeinated soft drinks, or even coffee or other caffeinated drinks or foods, they would (if aspartame really did trigger symptoms) be expected to have no appreciable change in symptoms?
Furthermore, given a cup of coffee has about 125mg of caffeine, how would this compare (in metabolic formaldehyde creation) to a 20oz diet Coke or Pepsi?
My thinking being that IF people are folate deficient, or believe that aspartame causes the variety of symptoms listed, which is the worse of two evils - drinking a normal sized coffee or a 20oz bottle of pop (which has 50 or so mg of caffeine if caffeinated, in addition to whatever amount of aspartame)?
John E. Garst, Ph.D. (Medicinal Chemistry, Pharmacology, and Toxicology)
Apr 11, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Hi:
It is difficult to provide a simple answer to your question. Every drink has a different amount of caffeine; the black can of Pepsi diet cola, for example, contains alot of caffeine compared to other soft drink sources. Caffeine theoretically produces 3 times the formaldehyde that the same number of molecules of aspartame do. I say theoretically, because only the first two (of the three) methyl groups really come off as formaldehyde before the remainder of the molecule is excreted in the urine.
To answer your question, one might well have a similar reaction to the same dose of caffeine as to aspartame, but any reaction to aspartame or caffeine is likely suggestive of a direct or indirect reaction to some folate issue, whether it be frank deficiency (most likely in women) or some personal folate metabolic issue of which there are many possible.
FYI, trying to avoid substances that produce formaldehyde (caffeine or aspartame) is not really the solution though; formaldehyde is required for the folate enzyme system to make vital methyl groups that regulate DNA; methylation either of specific DNA bases (urididylate conversion to thymidylate) or general methylation of DNA is how that formaldehyde is used after the folate reaction. Insufficient amounts of either can lead to cancers or disease. But some of the formaldehyde we ingest reacts with folate and depletes some of that folate, whether that formaldehyde comes from aspartame, caffeine, or even apple or tomato juices. The only solution is to take folate supplements, which replace that small amount lost to these causes. Some people believe a good diet is the answer, but you simply cannot get enough functional folate from natural foods or from dietary sources to prevent folate deficiency. The supplements are more effectively used too.
Hope this helps.
JEG
Have an opinion? Leave a comment: