Aspartame: A Look at the Controversial Sweetener-1
Aspartame has been a hot topic of controversy over the past few decades and continues to be heavily scrutinized by professionally executed lab experiments to less formal internet sites launching campaigns wholeheartedly against it. It’s easy to get lost in the debate, so here is some information we’ve collected from a range of sources detailing the history and the controversy of the artificial sweetener.
Where did aspartame come from?
Aspartame was discovered in the 1960s by a chemist looking for a possible cure for stomach ulcers. Without the chemist realising, some of the substance he was working with came in contact with his fingers. Upon licking his fingers to leaf through some papers, the chemist noticed how sweet the substance was, and thus the artificial sweetener, aspartame, was born. The taste of aspartame is around 180 times sweeter and is lower in calories than sugar, which means much less in needed to sweeten foods. Americans, eager to get their hands on a sugar substitute in a wave of diet frenzied consumers, made aspartame a hugely profitable business for the then owner G.D. Searle & Company. Today, aspartame is used in diet sodas and thousands of other products, ranging from yogurt to vitamins to sugar-free gum, and is promoted as a sugar substitute for people trying to lose weight and those with diabetes (www.cnn.com).
Before aspartame’s first approval by the American FDA, G.D. Searle carried out the first health safety experiment with aspartame. The experiment was conducted over two years by a trained neuropathologist and neuroscientist, Dr. John Olney. In this experiment, 320 rats were fed aspartame and 120 control rats were not. By the end of two years, 12 of the aspartame fed rats had developed tumors and none of the control rats had. These 12 of 320 represented a 3.75% incidence of brain tumors in rats fed aspartame, which is 25 times higher than the incidence of spontaneous development of brain tumors in rats (.15%). The rats fed aspartame were split into low doses and high doses, with the higher dosages related to a higher incidence of brain tumors (Blaylock, 211-213). This study and others led to a controversial beginning for aspartame and full approval for its use in all foods was not received until 1996.
Speculation surrounds the initial approval of aspartame for use in dry foods, which was received in 1981. In 1979, the FDA formed a Public Board of Inquiry (PBOI) to look into NutraSweet, G.D. Searle’s named aspartame product. In 1980, the PBOI decided that further investigations were needed before NutraSweet could be approved, but despite this, by mid 1981, the new FDA commissioner under Reagan’s administration overruled the PBOI and approved NutraSweet. Controversy and conjecture of foul dealings arose when newly appointed President Reagan suspended the FDA commissioner until the new commissioner, Dr. Arthur Hull Hayes Jr., was put in place. It is speculated that, Donald Rumsfeld, a former Counsellor to President Nixon, Member of Congress, Secretary of Defense, and then CEO of G.D. Searle, may have used his political pull with Reagan to appoint the new FDA commissioner who would override the FDA’s ruling for more scientific studies (Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World).
What is aspartame exactly?
Aspartame consists of two amino acids – aspartate (aspartic acid) and pheylalanine. Aspartame is also made up of 10% methanol or wood alcohol.
Aspartate (approximately 40% of aspartame) is a normally occurring neurotransmitter found in the brain and spinal cord. Our bodies usually control the levels of aspartate. If aspartate reaches above a critical level, it can become an excitotoxin, meaning that it can cause the nervous system to become extremely excited and if given in large doses can cause cells to die (Blaylock, 38-39).
Phenylalanine (approximately 50% of aspartame) is also an amino acid and in high doses can become a neurotoxin as well. The FDA has acknowledged some dangers of this amino acid. David Hattan, Ph.D., acting director of FDA's division of health effects evaluation, does warn against phenylalanine for certain people, saying that those who have phenylketonuria (PKU), a condition where a person cannot metabolize phenylalanine, will need to be aware that aspartame contains phenylalanine. He also warns that pregnant women should be aware of the presence of phenylalanine in aspartame as high levels of phenylalanine can cause serious adverse effects on their unborn child. Because of these warnings, the FDA does require products containing phenylalanine to state this on their label (www.fda.gov). Some studies have also shown that carriers of PKU (these people don’t have PKU but carry the gene for it can reach toxic levels of phenylalanine in their body (Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World).
Methanol (approximately 10% of aspartame) is absorbed in the small intestine and converted to formaldehyde and formic acid. Debate has risen whether the toxin formaldehyde from the methanol in aspartame accumulates in the body. Advocates of aspartame say that it doesn’t while others say that it does and that with this accumulation there can be serious problems, some stating vision difficulties as a key reaction. Advocates of aspartame also make the argument that methanol occurs naturally and in larger quantities in tomatoes and other foods, but they are met with the opposition stating that the naturally occurring methanol is always accompanied by higher amounts of ethanol, which acts as an ‘antidote’ for methanol poisoning (www.dorway.com, www.naturalnews.com).
More about the controversy
The American FDA has received thousands of anecdotal cases of adverse health reactions to aspartame, including headaches and seizures. Other reports against aspartame also stress its negative affect on the developing brain of fetuses and children. The brain continues to change throughout life, but a large portion of development occurs between conception and six to seven years after birth (Blaylock, 65-66). As the brain is developing, glutamate is an important neurotransmitter for stimulating connections, but an excess of glutamate or aspartate, which acts similarly to glutamate, can be harmful, possibly leading to learning disabilities and emotional illnesses, as this development is such a crucial time in a human’s life (Blaylock, 61-63). Many problems won’t emerge until later in life, when pinpointing the cause may be impossible. Studies have shown that the placental barrier is not impenetrable, meaning that if the mother is ingesting aspartame the child may be exposed to aspartate (Blaylock, 68).
In 1996, a report by the same scientist who completed the original test with aspartame, Dr. Olney, linked a rise in incidence of brain tumors in the U.S.A. to the use of aspartame. The report highlights that brain cancer rates in the U.S. rose 10% soon after NutraSweet was approved for use in soft drinks in 1983. This report was dismissed by NutraSweet and criticized by some as not having a proper scientific basis to link the two. Dr. Olney and his colleagues were not using this report as a formal study linking the two but are calling for more research to be done on the link between the tumors and aspartame (www.cancer.gov).
MSG is an artificial flavor enhancer that has, alongside aspartame, been the subject of controversy. The aspartate in aspartame stimulates the same glutamate receptors as the glutamate in MSG and, like aspartate, at high levels glutamate acts as an excitotoxin (Blaylock, 38-39). MSG is anecdotally linked to a very poor reputation and after a large public outcry in the late 1980s, the FDA looked further into the health affects of MSG. In 1995, the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology presented a summary report of the scientific findings available to the FDA on the affects of MSG. The findings reported that an unknown percentage of the population might react negatively to MSG and develop MSG symptom complex. With some of the symptoms of the complex being: burning sensation in neck, back, forearms and chest; chest pain; rapid heartbeat; nausea; drowsiness; weakness; and difficulty breathing for those with asthma. The FDA has suggested that packaged foods that contain MSG should label their products with “contains glutamate” but many companies get around this by still using free glutamates in their food but labeling them as hydrolyzed plant protein, hydrolyzed vegetable protein, kombu extract and natural flavoring, spices or seasoning (www.fda.gov). With both MSG and aspartame stimulating glutamate receptors in the brain, it is often perplexing why MSG is more warned against by government sectors than aspartame.
Because of the controversy, conflicting scientific studies, anecdotal evidence of health problems and murky past of aspartame, stores, states in America and entire countries are seeking to ban it or restrict its use. UK supermarket Asda has announced that it would attempt to remove aspartame from its own-label food products. As part of this campaign for its ‘Good For You’ range, Asda labeled aspartame as well as artificial colours and hydrogenated fats as “nasties” (www.foodanddrinkeurope.com). New Mexico and Hawaii both have had bills up for approval to ban the sweetener. Those trying to pass these bills know that it is an uphill battle as whether an individual state has authority to override the FDA is under question (www.honoluluadvertiser.com). The Indonesian government is currently reviewing regulations for three artificial sweeteners – saccharin, cyclamate and aspartame. In New Zealand, a petition of over 8,000 people was submitted to the NZ government asking for warning labels to outline health risks, programs to raise awareness of the dangers of aspartame and the removal of food and drink containing aspartame from schools (www.scoop.co.nz).
Since the controversy is growing and generating a lot of bad press for the companies who use aspartame in their products, some companies are seeking sweetener alternatives. Coca-Cola has been rigorously exploring Rebiana, a sweetener made from the stevia rebaudiana plant. Stevia is a non-caloric, all natural herb that may have been used by natives of South America since before Columbian times. Stevia has been approved for use in food in many other countries and up until recently, the American FDA has only allowed stevia to be sold as a labeled dietary supplement but not as a sweetener (www.stevia.com). Rebiana will be marketed in association with Cargill and sold under the name Truvia™. Truvia™ will be the first available sweetener for foods and beverages that has been purified from the stevia plant (www.thecoca-colacompany.com).
The majority of the defense for aspartame use says that it is not consumed in high enough doses. The current Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) of aspartame as stated by the FDA is 50 mg/kg; that's about 20 cans (12-oz.) of diet soft drinks for a 70 kg adult (www.fda.gov). That’s a lot of diet soda. Also, giving an acceptable daily intake can be a difficult standard to set, as people have different deficiencies and tolerances. For example, an experiment carried out in the late 1980s, reported that if one is lacking glucose and/or magnesium, this can cause neurons to be more susceptible to overstimulation from glutamate (Blaylock, 49).
The Aspartame Information Centre states, “Neither aspartame nor its components accumulates in the body. These components are used in the body in the same ways as when they are derived from common foods.” (www.aspartame.org). It may be true that the substances in aspartame do occur naturally in some foods, but more research needs to be done to show if they occur in the same manner, with many of the naysayers of aspartame pointing out that its components occur with other substances in their natural form in foods, which keeps their potential for harm at bay.
The Bottom Line
We at Mind Warriors haven’t preformed any studies on artificial flavorings and sweeteners ourselves, but after sifting through the large quantity of anecdotal cases, scientific research, and history of aspartame, we have decided to steer clear of both MSG and aspartame as to avoid any potential adverse effects. It’s a simple philosophy – if in doubt, leave it out. If you’re in the same school of thought, be label-smart and watch out for aspartame hiding under E950, E951 and MSG under E621 or flavor enhancer 621. The next time you are doing your weekly grocery shopping, take a moment to remember the old adage “you are what you eat.” It might ring more true than you originally thought.
References:
Blaylock, Russell L., M.D. (1997). Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills
Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World, aspartame documentary by Sound and Fury Productions
Article by Jessica George (Mind Warriors)