Welcome to Gaia! ::

Aspartame: a chemical compound sweeter than sugar – one hundred fifty times as sweet, in fact. Compared with its naturally-occurring counterpart, sugar, it seems like a diet-crazed America’s dream come true and an easy way for those suffering from Diabetes to sensibly indulge. However despite being accepted as a safe food additive by the Food and Drug Administration, multiple studies have produced conclusive evidence adhering to the belief that aspartame and other artificial sweeteners are detrimental to human health and should be consumed minimally if at all. Side effects found from aspartame consumption range from mild headaches to being linked with debilitating diseases such as Leukemia and Alzheimer’s disease (Mercola 55). As well as having evidence against the artificial sweeteners’ case, the approval of the food additive is not safe simply because it was accepted by the Food and Drug Administration, which has sparked controversy in many cases of approval, including its mistake with production of heparin where it approved the wrong drug producing facility in China (Washington Post).

Found in over six thousand products on the market from soft drinks to cakes and other sweets, aspartame has become a dangerous power in the dieting industry (Aspartame Information Center). Though advertized as a “dieter’s” product and marketed toward those trying to lose weight as well as diabetics, aspartame has been shown to go so far as to aid in weight gain and obesity. While aspartame and other artificial sweeteners are not the sole cause of America’s obesity epidemic, it is most certainly a contributing factor in the war on weight gain (Roberts 147).

Unfortunately, aspartame has become an epidemic, and nearly every processed product one could imagine has aspartame as an ingredient. In order to preserve one’s health, one should avoid the consumption of aspartame and other artificial sweeteners as much as possible, instead substituting for them real sugar as well as other natural alternatives; as the health-mantra chants however, “moderation is the key” (Aspartame Information Center).

In order to understand where the need for artificial sugars came from, one must delve into the history of the human diet. As hunter-gatherers, humans were limited in dietary variety consuming what they could find and harvest or kill; their diets consisted primarily of nuts and seeds, fruits and vegetables, and meats such as fish. Unsurprisingly, our ancestors had the lowest body fat to body mass ratio of any humans before or since then. Evidence shows that they rarely suffered from the diseases common today including degenerative ones such as diabetes, cancer, osteoporosis and arthritis, and obesity. As humans became more civilized and their diets more processed however, these health problems began to occur and grow in frequency (Roberts 1-3). Before the 1500s, sugar reduced from sugarcane was expensive and available only to the wealthy. During around 1492, Columbus ventured to the New World and planted sugarcane which grew rapidly in the tepid climate. As it became more available, sugar dropped in price and was now accessible to the masses, allowing humans to indulge in the most satisfying sustenance available: instant energy (Roberts 5).

The fact that sugar was now easily processed does not provide an ample enough explanation for overindulgence. Being a species programmed for “feast and famine” (that is, either having plenty of food or none at all), we as a species are inclined to eat larger amounts of efficient foods such as sugar or sweets whenever possible. In a natural state, this is ideal, as primitive cultures such as the Aborigines and Bushmen of Australia and Africa respectively only consume an average of only four pounds of sugar per year in the form of raw honey (Mercola 6). Now, a typical American devours an estimated 158 pounds of sugar in a years’ time. Native desires along with clever marketing have created an obsession with sugar which is slowly killing us (Mercola 7). The innate desire to consume sweet sustenance in the scenario of the primitive cultures is ideal as it is a novelty in the wilderness but in contrast, the availability of sugar in modern-day society has proven this drive to consume quite problematic.
An excess of sugar leads to increased insulin, which is a contributing factor in distressing diseases like obesity and diabetes and can also be linked to other diseases and malnutrition including hypoglycemia, cardiovascular disease, and cancer (Mercola 19). It was out of a desire to obtain sweet taste without the harmful side effects of sugar that artificial sweeteners were born, the first of which being saccharin, accidentally discovered at John Hopkins University in 1879. Saccharin was bought by a new company called Monsanto in 1901 and was used by the brand-new company, Coca-Cola, to sweeten their product. It was found in 1907 that saccharin did not raise blood sugar, and the market then shifted toward products for diabetics. In 1912, saccharin was banned in the United States due to health-related hazards, but was brought back two years later after an overwhelming demand caused by World War I sugar rationing (Mercola 20-2). Says Dr. Joseph Mercola, M.D. in his publication, Sweet Deception, “Health concerns were brushed aside in the face of economic ones. The war increased demand for saccharin greatly and it turned into a major product with serious commercial clout” (21). This was also true of the Second World War, by which time saccharin was produced in abundance throughout both Europe and the United States (Mercola 22).

With such a highly demanded jump-start into the human diet, saccharin was not tested for its actual safety until almost one century later, in 1969. Testing in a Canadian laboratory found that fifty percent of all animals fed high doses of saccharin developed bladder cancer and confirmed that there was a higher risk of tumors as well. Because of this, Congress required a warning label on all products containing saccharin informing the public that the chemical may be hazardous to one’s health. In 1991 however, the results of long-term studies proved that saccharin consumption was not a major factor in causing cancer, as the lab rats that were tested “had physiological differences from humans that made them more susceptible to bladder cancer from saccharin” (Mercola 27). President Clinton in 1992 signed that the warnings about saccharin were no longer necessary on products containing the artificial sweetener, and the FDA did not object (Mercola 26-7).

Since then, a number of other artificial sweeteners have been discovered by scientists, including cyclamate, alitame, sucralose, acesulfame-k, neotame, and aspartame, the last of which was intended as a medicine for stomach ulcers. Enthusiastic tests were performed in 1967 on behalf of G. D. Searle & Company in order to test the safety of the new potential money maker, and the results were disturbing. Recounts Mercola, “In one study, out of seven monkeys fed aspartame mixed with milk, one monkey actually died, and five others had grand mal seizures” (3 cool . It was shown by Dr. John Olney, another scientist not associated with the company that a main ingredient in the chemical compound called aspartic acid, “caused damage in the brains of infant mice”, and these results were also established by the tests from G. D. Searle & Co. (Mercola 38-9). Nevertheless, aspartame was approved by the FDA as a safe food additive.

Despite the FDA’s approval of aspartame as safe for consumption, its side effects are horrifying at best. Aspartame is comprised of two amino acids, phenylalanine and aspartic acid, and a third constituent, methyl alcohol (methanol) used to bond the two amino acids. Phenylalanine makes up approximately half of the aspartame compound, aspartic acid forty percent, and conclusively methyl alcohol the remaining ten percent of the mix. In a liter of a typical diet soda, one may expect to find 550 milligrams of aspartame, and thus 55 milligrams of methyl alcohol, a known poison. States Dr. H. J. Roberts, M.D., “The body attempts to detoxify methanol by oxidizing it to formaldehyde” (42) for the reason that two enzymes previously used to metabolize the particular alcohol have been lost in the process of human evolution. Because of this, methyl alcohol is oxidized and removed from the body at a rate of only one-seventh that of ethanol, a related alcohol (Roberts 41-2). Janet Starr Hull, author of Sweet Poison clarifies the danger of the breakdown of methanol, “Formaldehyde is a dangerous neurotoxin considered a cumulative poison due to its low excretion once absorbed into the body” (152). She continues, “Accumulating slowly and without detection, it is a known carcinogen, causing retinal damage, interfering with DNA replication, and causing birth defects” (Hull 152). Simply put, while one may not notice the immediate effects of aspartame consumption, the toxins from the formaldehyde being produced are devastating in the long-term prospective.

Methanol, being a poison, has been proven to cause a number of side effects, including eye damage and blindness, local death of brain tissue, damage to peripheral nerves, pancreatitis, inflammation of the heart, and death. In order to further express the danger of methyl alcohol, Dr. Roberts clarifies, “The amount of methanol ingested by heavy consumers of aspartame products could readily exceed 250mg daily. This is 32 times the limit of consumption recommended by the Environmental Protection Agency” (42). Roberts goes on to quote Monte, a source in his publication, “One-hundredth the fatal level [of aspartame] (a standard criterion for safety used by the FDA) translates into only two 12-ounce cans” (42). The fact that such a highly toxic chemical is not only approved by the FDA, but unregulated as well is a frightening concept.

Aside from the methyl alcohol poisoning-related side effects, the unique compound of aspartame has side effects of its own. Says Mercola, “For anyone who doubts the frequency of aspartame reactions, the FDA has received over ten thousand complaints submitted by people who have had them” (65). The most common of which were severe headaches, seizures and convulsions, impairment of vision, dizziness, atypical pain, rashes, fatigue, depression, personality change, and memory loss. In a survey of 551 people conducted by Dr. Roberts, results showed that age was not a factor in the reactions to aspartame (users ranged from infancy to 92 years of age) and while consumption of larger amounts tended to produce stronger results, sensitivity of surveyed individuals varied. Some individuals may experience extreme fatigue or other side effects of aspartame like seizures or headaches after only a small amount of aspartame contained in a stick of chewing gum or a cup of aspartame-sweetened coffee. It is for this reason that Roberts urges all individuals to avoid the use of aspartame-sweetened products (76-100).

Because neither a limit age nor amount of aspartame over zero prevents side effects when consuming aspartame-sweetened products, one should avoid the consumption of the chemical compound as much as possible. Rather than consuming teas or colas sweetened with aspartame, one should instead substitute water, or consume tea with no artificial sweeteners. Herbal teas may be flavored without the use of such sweeteners, and may instead be spiced up with cinnamon, lemon or other natural flavorings. Fruit juices and fruit may also serve to satisfy one’s sweet tooth, though they must be consumed in moderation for those suffering from diabetes and hypoglycemia. When faced with the question of which is worse for one’s health: aspartame or sugar, Dr. Roberts correctly replies, “My present opinion is that sugar, taken in minimum amounts, is preferable” (285). By abstaining from aspartame and other artificial sweeteners and instead eating more healthful, less processed foods, humankind may find itself more closely matched to the physique of our once-foraging ancestors and less so that of a cow. In switching to a diet without artificial sweeteners and with regulated sugar consumption, one will find oneself to be in good health with no fear of the ailments to come from their “health-conscious” fad-dieting peers.

You're totally awesome for writing that and posting this.

I hate hate hate aspartame (and Splenda but I know far less about Splenda than aspartame) and MSG (even though MSG seems impossible to stay away from).

Anyway! I really appreciate this report biggrin

I had a friend who used to argue that with aspartame a little goes a long way and I'd think "Yeah but the average American eats how many pounds of sugar in a year?" I'd rather cut down on my sugar intake than substitute it I guess.

First off, what a well written paper; I hope you got a 4.0!

But, eh, everything has it's dangers. Artificial sweeteners contain poison, carrying extra weight can lead to a laundry list of health conditions and problems, as well as an early death.

I'm not a heavy drinker of diet pop, I might have 1 - 2 eight oz glasses a day, maximum. I've always been aware of the risks.

To me, though, knowing that heart conditions and diabetes both run in my family and that I'm obese - something that exacerbates both conditions, I'll take the artificial sweetener. I'd rather use something in moderation (as is key with everything) that may be potentially dangerous, than stay at a weight that is guaranteed to be dangerous.

Right now I'm just too much of a sweets addict. I can use some Splenda in my coffee and drink a diet pop through out the day, and it keeps me away from the cookies and brownies. I need to lose weight for health reasons, and those fake sweeteners help on those low willpower days.

The one comment I'd like to make about your paper is that you list headaches as a side effect of aspartame use. While this may very well be possible, I have not done any research, but I didn't like the fact that you never addressed the fact that there is another known drug in soda - caffeine. Caffeine is addicting and one of the most common withdraw symptoms is a headache. Couldn't it be very possible that the caffeine influenced this list of symptoms?

I don't know, it's just something that occurred to me while reading. I was hoping you'd also post your Works Cited page so I could track down your sources and see how the studies were conducted, but it wasn't there.