|
Grex > Health > #38: Artifical Sweeteners linked to Brain Tumors on "60 Minutes"? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
mcpoz
|
|
Artifical Sweeteners linked to Brain Tumors on "60 Minutes"?
| 
Dec 30 00:46 UTC 1996 |
I just saw a disturbing item on "60 Minutes." It was an article on Aspartane
which is an artificial sweetener manufactured by Monsanto. It is sold under
the names "Nutrasweet" and "Equal."
The concern is that it may be tied in with an increase in aggressive brain
tumors. Per the 60 minutes study, there was a controversy over its
association with malignant brain tumors at the time of its approval in 1981.
The FDA was concerned about studies it publicly labeled as "sloppy" and
"misrepresenting the facts" and "withholding facts which would jeopardize
approval" but it was approved anyway by an overruling from Reagan's new FDA
Secretary Hayes.
The FDA recommended a criminal investigation into the studies but because of
the resignation of a federal attorney, the case was dropped.
Currently, a Dr. John Olney of Washington University is citing the increase
in aggressive malignant tumors as reason to review the studies and the
approval. He is not claiming he sees a direct cause, but he says the facts
are good enough to suspect Aspartane as a cause.
By the way, this material was developed by GD Searle who did the original
studies and the product line was purchased later by Monsanto.
If you or your family are hooked on Nutrasweet or Equal, it may be worth your
while to do some research on the subject. I plan to look through the Internet
and if I find anything worth while, I will post it here.
|
| 15 responses total. |
mcpoz
|
|
response 1 of 15:
|
Dec 30 01:25 UTC 1996 |
Correction: The correct name of the sweetener is "Aspartame."
I have just looked up [aspartame +"brain tumor"] on Altavista and got 4000
hits. I have glanced at a few and one in particular is a review of Dr.
Olney's manuscript by leading experts. The experts all are taking the stance
of saying that Olney's conclusions are misleading or wrong and that the
evidence does not link Aspartame to the tumors. (More reading required)
|
denise
|
|
response 2 of 15:
|
Dec 30 02:36 UTC 1996 |
Marc, thanks for sharing this and any other info you share on this topic! I'm
a big diet coke drinker, hence, I'm interested in hearing what the researchers
have to say!
|
bruin
|
|
response 3 of 15:
|
Dec 30 02:48 UTC 1996 |
So am I, mcpoz. Maybe this will explain some of the reason for my weight gain
on soda pop with Nutrasweet, and whether or not I would have been better off
drinking sugared pop.
|
hokshila
|
|
response 4 of 15:
|
Dec 30 06:06 UTC 1996 |
Aspartame is not a good product at all. I have stayed away from it. I know
that it breaks down into formaldihyde in the liver. This can't be good for
me. Also, I was told at my health food store about five years ago that
aspartame is carcinogenic. *five years ago*. Check with a local health food
store. Mine (Whole Foods in Ann Arbor) has copies of articles. Maybe yours
does, too.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 5 of 15:
|
Dec 30 06:51 UTC 1996 |
Aspartame is a dipeptide of phenyl alanine and aspartylic acid - both
common and amino acids. The metabolic products are the same as for the amino
acids. I don't recall whether formaldehyde is a product in any metabolic
pathway; acetaldehyde is in the ethanol metabolism path.
|
robh
|
|
response 6 of 15:
|
Dec 31 16:12 UTC 1996 |
This item has been linked from Health 38 to Intro 136.
Type "join health" at the Ok: prompt for discussion of
sweet things and their nasty side effects.
|
gecko
|
|
response 7 of 15:
|
Jan 4 06:16 UTC 1997 |
The article at Whole Foods is very helpful, especially when trying
to convince aspartame-addicted loved ones that they should give
their diet drinks up.
|
sidekick
|
|
response 8 of 15:
|
Jan 19 14:33 UTC 1997 |
yikes! I drink 2 or 3 diet Cokes every day, and sweeten every glass of
tea with 2 Sweet & Lows.
I'll have to start keeping an eye on this topic, i guess
|
mcpoz
|
|
response 9 of 15:
|
Jan 19 15:56 UTC 1997 |
Well, from a cursury look at the articles on the internet, it looks like the
"60 Minutes" news report was a hatchet job. There are several articles by
leading experts who use very harsh language in describing the researcher
(Dr. Olney) as "indefensible", "seriously flawed", "misrepresentation", "the
paper mis-states . . ", etc, etc. etc.
|
salang
|
|
response 10 of 15:
|
Jan 22 18:56 UTC 1997 |
Drink real sugar. It not only tastes better but it is now found to be better
for you. I hope that the companies that make aspartame get their ass sued
right off of them. They deserve it.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 11 of 15:
|
Jan 23 07:32 UTC 1997 |
I think the users bear some responsibility for using it properly. If your
idea held sway, then we would not be able to use most substances.
|
haji
|
|
response 12 of 15:
|
Jan 24 15:30 UTC 1997 |
i agree with rcurl, no one is forcing this down your throat, you want to use
it , use it, if you don't then don't , afterall this is America. (haji's 2
cents b/c that's all I can spare :))
|
krc
|
|
response 13 of 15:
|
Jan 24 15:33 UTC 1997 |
According to follow up news articles in the Detroit Free Press, "60 Minutes"
was using scare tactics for dramatic effect. You'd have to ingest 3000 time
what a normal person is *capable* of ingesting before there would be this
problem.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 14 of 15:
|
Jan 24 17:06 UTC 1997 |
As it stands, there appears to be no believable evidence for a link between
aspartame and brain tumors.
|
mta
|
|
response 15 of 15:
|
Jul 27 23:28 UTC 1998 |
On the other hand, (re: aspartame) I found that it made my seizures much
worse. Once I switched from diet softdrinks to the sugared sort I was able
to cut my seizre medication by 2/3 anf get *better* control than I'd had
before.
My neurologist says that it's not uncommon to find that, but that it's
certainly not universal.
|