No one has ever accused me...

of being a scientist.

But, there's enough controversy about this product to make me run from it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame_controversy

I was a heavy Diet Coke drinker during college, and when the fatigue and headaches started, my first reactions was, "OK, I'm having caffeine withdrawal, let me crack open another Diet Coke." By coincidence we were asked for a Chemistry course to choose a chemical to investigate and on which to submit a brief paper; naturally, I chose aspartame. Needless to say, I quit drinking the Diet Coke cold turkey before I even finished the paper, as I realized that aspartame--in addition to its more serious side effects--induces symptoms that emulate those of caffeine withdrawal.

Oh yeah, this factoid didn't boost my confidence either .

I often wonder why Stevia has never been used in soft drinks, etc. I grew it at home this summer and used it in my tea. I say "grew" because Gene was pulling weeds in my garden one day, and did not recognize the plant, so out it came.

http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/QAA400318/Is-Stevia-Really-Safe

Oh yeah, this factoid didn't boost my confidence either

Yes, I had read about the Rumsfeld/Searle connection.

I am a scientist and I do this kind of work for a living.

I took a quick look through the information in the link. I don't think there is enough information there to draw firm conclusions. One would need to go back and read the original literature to adequately judge which of the studies was most reliable.

I am a scientist and I do this kind of work for a living.

I took a quick look through the information in the link. I don't think there is enough information there to draw firm conclusions. One would need to go back and read the original literature to adequately judge which of the studies was most reliable.

Yeah, I don't often put much stock in the stuff that filters through the media to the public from this or that study.

However, sometimes when you have a bunch of scientists lined up on two sides of an issue, the truth usually does not fall far from the side that has the folks on it who have not been paid by the manufacturers of whatever is being studied. Just a rule of thumb.

There's enough there for me to abstain from aspartame.

[Jenise]

As a kid I loved soda, but when the calories became an issue I switched to iced tea because I loved it as much as I loathed the bitter aftertaste of sugar substitutes. Plus, though like you not the least bit scientifically inclined, as I preached to my husband for years it never made any sense to fill one's body with with flavored chemicals instead of fluids that would truly cleanse or nourish. Just couldn't be anything good about that. He ignored me until I showed him an article in the NY Times about the Italian study, and having already survived a malignant kidney tumor he at last needed no further prompting to give up his beloved Diet Cokes. How large the risk we don't know, but there's probably some and he should avoid it.

Interestingly, even though it was a substitute sugar, he's found his taste for sweets hugely diminished. The sweetness, or impression of sweetness, had given his palate a higher tolerance and craving for sappy, candied flavors where now, without the sodas, he's lost all interest in manufactured sweets and is finding fresh fruit a lot more interesting than he used to.

Yeah, I don't often put much stock in the stuff that filters through the media to the public from this or that study. / However, sometimes when you have a bunch of scientists lined up on two sides of an issue, the truth usually does not fall far from the side that has the folks on it who have not been paid by the manufacturers of whatever is being studied. Just a rule of thumb.

I agree in part, chef. I've watched some of those situations closely in recent decades, once or twice gotten involved. (And also changed my views when I let data influence them, instead of vice versa which is the usual instinct.)

My own take is a little more complex and open-ended (there being more than enough simple answers around already -- for a long time*). It's that controversies involving public issues over science or technology often line up into two articulate camps [as above], one with vested interest but also sometimes serious expertise, the other disinterested but uninformed, pursuing a fixed position bought into emotionally. (Summary: The "un-disinterested" vs the "uninformed.")

Moreover, some self-described "public advocacy" bodies do (as Dickens might say) a decent job of bringing disturbing issues to light, and an excellent job of maintaining their own prestige, visibility, and donations at the same time.


* For every complex problem, there's a solution that's simple, neat, and wrong. (Mencken, but only from memory.)

...the truth usually does not fall far from the side that has the folks on it who have not been paid by the manufacturers of whatever is being studied.

Well said, Chef.

More generally, I don't understand sugar substitutes. Of course, I understand why someone wants to sell them, but I don't understand why someone wants to use them. Here's why: If I cannot or should not eat sugar, then using a sugar substitute is only going to encourage me to want sweet things. I think it would be better to manage my desires immediately than to prolong the angst of wanting things I can't really have.

[ Yes, I've been told that I'm weird. ]

I agree totally with Jeff. The way the food industry creates and exploits sweet tooth palates is bad for health. Once they have trained people to like and expect sweeter and sweeter foods, people come to prefer foods that have been loaded with empty calories from High Fructose Corn Syrup or artifically sweetened to sustain that illusion.

Recent experiments with lab rats show that rats trained to like and expect sweet food actually OD on the calories even when the sugar has been replaced by artificial sweetener.

Once the sweet tooth has been established, artificial sweeteners sustain bad dietary habits like excessive calorie consumption. They are an impediment to weight loss and healthful eating.

Perhaps this is a better place for the scientists among us to peruse data. He obviously is anti-aspartame, but this guy cites numerous studies.

http://www.dorway.com/offasprt.html

And here's some research on the history of aspartame from 1964-1995.

http://www.dorway.com/enclosur.html

It's *long.*