Aspartame is Poison, a Neurotoxin, Actually
As are the NutraSweet, Equal and Sugar Twin brands under which Aspartame is marketed.
NUTRITIONISTS ARE at war with sugar, and for good reason – sugar isn’t sugar any more.
For thousands of years, humans have ingested sugar without harm; after all, it was a luxury, rather than a component of nearly every food a person ate.
Times have changed with the advent of subsidized farming (for instance, the corn in high fructose corn syrup – more about that from Peter Jennings), processed foods with long shelf life, and complex chemistry.
Now, sugar – or it’s artificial approximation – is in everything. And one surprising thing that’s in the Aspartame-sugar-approximation is a chemical neurotoxin, albeit considerably diluted. (We hope.)
If you use Aspartame, or know someone who does, I hope I have your attention, because ingesting a neurotoxin can have some serious negative side effects. In his post on the subject, Dr. Joseph Mercola delves into the specifics and cites the research, as does this aspartame warning.
I’m not kidding. Most sweeteners that are used today are chemical approximations of real sugar, and the most dominant artificial sweetener is Aspartame. According to Forbes, 55% of the artificial sweeteners used 2003 is Aspartame, as the pie chart above indicates.
If you’re not into reading details, just do yourself a favor and substitute Aspartame with whole-leaf Stevia or Xylitol. Information about them can be read here: Are You Getting Fat and Sick from Sugar.
Last Updated on February 27, 2022 by Joe Garma
Your misinformation about aspartame needs correction. First, I must note that aspartame is considered safe by all relevant regulatory agencies in the western world. Suggestions to the contrary are simply unsupported by extensive studies over twenty years. Second and consequently, it is clear that ALL issues with aspartame arise not from any aspartame safety issue, but from PERSONAL sensitivities in some users caused by deficiency of the vitamin folic acid (folate deficiency; not uncommon and a big cause of birth and other defects), by genetic folate enzyme differences (called polymorphisms that require more folate for the same function; up to 40% of certain populations) or with related methyl cycle issues like low B12 (not uncommon), high homocysteine (not uncommon), ethanol abuse (potent inhibitor, 'fetal alcohol syndrome'; not uncommon), etc (and that includes childhood insect stings that can make a person frankly allergic). Amongst listed complaints there are very few exceptions to this paradigm. But more importantly, no aspartame critic can show me an aspartame sensitive person that has even been checked for one of these issues.
The aspartame conspiracy theory on the internet is fostered by Roberts, Blaylock, Mercola and others and commentary on all three is warranted. Critic Roberts has done a bunch of studies suggesting some people have reactions to aspartame that disappear when aspartame is no longer used. Unfortunately, he has never done any studies that even considered these vitamin and related issues. Most of Roberts criticisms are anecdotal letters to the editor that rarely receive peer review. But consider this one recent example. Roberts (2007) (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/17534100) presents the only claimed association between aspartame and thrombocytopenia. Analysis (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez) of “folate deficiency, thrombocytopenia” (without quotes) revealed over 100 such citations for folate deficiency (on March 27, 2009). His one report stands against over 100 linking this issue to folate deficiency. That would suggest he has a 99 in 100 chance of being wrong and this claim becomes just another personal sensitivity issue unrelated to aspartame safety.
Critic Blaylock has never published anything in the primary literature about aspartame, but he writes books on this subject, based on anecdotal evidence from twenty years ago, before folate fortification became mandatory in 1998.
Mercola recently presented his case against aspartame at the Huffington Post only to be reprimanded by some serious opposition. Consider this one comment: http://whatdoesthesciencesay.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/extraordinaryclaimsaboutaspartameinthehuffingtonpost.pdf.
Rather than challenge aspartame, readers should consider Mercola's credibility http://www.quackwatch.com/11Ind/mercola.html and the credentials and credibility of all those fostering this conspiracy theory.
John E. Garst, Ph.D. (Medicinal Chemistry, Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Nutrition)