A Moment on the Lips, Forever in the Hips: The Dangers of Aspertame and Other Sweeteners

Researchers divided the mice into two groups. Group A ate food laced with the sweetener aspartame. After three months the aspartame group had higher levels of blood sugar than the mice that ate normal food. There is also speculation that same is true of other artificial sweeteners even ones made from sugar derivates or from the Stevia genus of plants.

However the 52-week toxicity in infant monkeys and the 2010 Swiss mice studies has provided pivotal, contradictory evidence to the aspartame debate. Dr. Waisman at the University of Wisconsin Medical Center located in Madison Wisconsin initiated the 52-week toxicity study in infant monkeys in 1971 . This study orally served Aspartame mixed in milk formula to seven infant Rhesus monkeys over a 52-week period . Waisman put the monkeys into three groups: a low dose group (1.0 g/kg), a medium dose group (3.0 g/kg) and a high dose group (4-6 g/kg) . There was no control group, meaning there was not a group of newborn monkeys that were not fed aspartame. Since monkeys are primates similar to humans—with only a 1.2 percent genetic difference—monkeys were chosen to study the effects of aspartame on primates. Data shows that one monkey from the high dosage group died over 300 days, five of seven suffered grad mal seizures in the low dose group starting on the 218th day of treatment, and all monkeys in the medium and high dose groups exhibited seizures . According to data, the seizures coincided with the levels of phenylalanine . One should note that in the low dose group there was not a significant increase in serum phenylalanine levels; therefore, convulsions were not expected . Overall, the findings of this study correlated brain seizures with high amounts of aspartame particularly phenylalanine ingested by the monkeys, but at low dosages no biologically meaningful alterations occurred . In addition, the study reported food intake and growth rate were reduced when compared to the historical range . (This data can be studied in figures two to four .) Though the evidence of this study correlates aspartame with brain seizures, the FDA still approved aspartame for human consumption. This is because there are issues with the studies sample size and procedures. The study did not use a large sample of

Numerous neurological and behavioral side effects have been linked with consuming aspartame at well below the approved safe limits set by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Aspartame is an artificial sweetener that has been ingested in the United States for over three decades. Even though there are several studies showing the harmful effects of its consumption. When aspartame is digested several toxic chemicals are produced, most notability formic acid & glutamate. Both of these chemicals cause the body to mimic the side effects of multiple sclerosis and Alzheimer. Even the passing of aspartame to be allowed in food was controversial. Just as the studies on it, continue to be today.

A. Not only can these sweeteners make you gain weight, but over time they could potentially hurt your body. Here is a list of the popular sugar substitutes and the potential harm they produce: Acesulfame potassium also known as "SweetOne" is 200 times sweeter than sugar, this is often paired with aspartame or sucralose. Known to cause breast tumors in rats. Saccharin also known as Sweet’NLow, is the oldest of the artificial sweeteners and is 300 –700 times sweeter than sugar, The National Cancer Institute found evidence of increased bladder cancer in people who heavily consumed saccharin. The label below is found on toothpaste, gum, and many other products that contain saccharin "USE OF THIS PRODUCT MAY BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR HEALTH. THIS PRODUCT CONTAINS SACCHARIN WHICH HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO CAUSE CANCER IN LABORATORY

Through extensive research, scientists have concluded that artificial sweeteners are carcinogenic; a cancer causing agent. Scientific research has revealed that cyclamate in combination with saccharin, the two main ingredients in artificial sweeteners, caused bladder cancer in laboratory rats. Though test where not done on humans scientist believe that the long-term effect of using artificial sweeteners would lead to the same complications in humans. Amino acids are biologically important organic compounds composed of amine and carboxylic acid functional groups. The human body needs amino acids to thrive. It is documented that ingestion of high amounts of artificial amino acids found in artificial sweeteners can have adverse effects on the human body such as cancer.

Who uses the sweetener or consume diet drinks may have heard of the controversy surrounding aspartame. The product has been linked with diseases or disorders such as migraine, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer, cancer, lymphomas, and brain tumors, among others. This association is mainly caused by the fact metabolized in the human body-releasing methanol, a chemical compound that has toxic and accumulative effect on the nervous system. Despite being naturally present in small amounts in chicken in the meat, the beans and skim milk when ingested in large quantities methanol can cause blindness, among other problems. This fact has been known since the approval of aspartame in the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). However,

My belief is that aspartame is not safe to use. The reason I believe aspartame is not safe is because it accounts for over 75 percent of the adverse reactions to food additives reported to the FDA. Many of these reactions are very serious, including seizures and death. Another reason I think the use of aspartame is unsafe is that diabetes, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s, and brain tumors are a few chronic illnesses that can be triggered or worsened by ingesting of aspartame. This hits home for me because my son is a diabetic. Everyone knows the less sugar you include in your diet, the better. But replacing sugar with aspartame is not the solution, and in fact is likely to be even worse for your health. I believe regardless

Obesity and its subsequent ailments are regarded as the leading cause(s) of death in the United States and many other parts of the world. As such, much deserved attention and controversy has been brought worldwide. Many people place blame for this relatively recent epidemic on the shoulders of high-fructose corn syrup, an artificial sweetener whose use has increased for many years alongside the rates of childhood and adult obesity. While they are not entirely incorrect in assuming a widespread increase in added sugars would result in more calories per product, more calories consumed, and therefore more calories stored in bodily tissue, high-fructose corn syrup alone is not solely to blame for this phenomenon.

Aspartame has now been on the market for many years and most people seemingly haven’t had adverse reactions. Or have they? Russell L. Blaylock, M.D. warns that many people don’t notice of the serious symptoms because “they’re more resistant to the obvious toxic effects, but they’re still getting very subtle toxic effects that over many years is going to produce obvious disease in those persons.” However, some people have had more direct, severe reactions. For example, FDA officials have estimated that only 1% of toxic reactions are likely to get reported and the agency received reports of 7,000 toxic reactions with aspartame from 1982 until 1995. In fact, there were likely more official reports of toxicity, but we can’t be sure to the extent. After all, Congress found out in 1987 that the FDA had been transferring aspartame toxicity calls to the AIDS Hotline.

As of 2012, “One third of all women and one quarter of all men in the US are on a diet.” (Colorado University, as cited in Colquhoun et al., 2012), according to Colorado University. However, according to the University of California, Los Angeles, “Up to two thirds of those on a diet regain more weight than when they started.” (University of California, Los Angeles, as cited in Colquhoun et al., 2012). This shows a low success rate in a growing industry and proves that diets don’t work, a key point in Hungry for Change. “Fit for Life” author, Harvey Diamond, states “Diets don’t work because they are temporary. What they are doing is taking one of the food categories you need to live like protein, fat, carbohydrates and one of those is eliminated and if you do that some weight will be lost temporarily.” (Diamond, as cited in Colquhoun et al., 2012). So, in order for a “diet” to be successful, it must be a permanent lifestyle transformation, not a temporary diet change. Also, though many people believe diet foods to be healthier, this is absolutely not the case. A key ingredient in many diet products is aspartame, a risky sugar substitute. Aspartame is common in artificial sweeteners and diet drinks, yet it has been linked to a plethora of medical problems, including cancer, formaldehyde build up in the brain, epilepsy, and even

Karen Congro, the director of the Wellness for Life Club program at the Brooklyn Hospital Center and nutritionist stated that long-term effects of aspartame in humans have not been studied . So from a marketing standpoint Pepsi’s switch away from aspartame may benefit their falling rates. In contrast, Diet Coke still only uses aspartame in their diet soda product. Though their advertising does not consistently, directly address the aspartame in their products, Diet Coke in 2013 defended their use of aspartame by stating in an ad that studies over the last 40 years has not discovered negative effects of aspartame . Interesting, today in 2015, 61 percent of Americans rely on online, websites or social media apps: Twitter, Snapchat, etc.—media reports—for their news . While 38 percent of Americans receive their news from offline sources, like newspapers, journals, etc. . Therefore, individuals should be wary that both journals and media reports, particularly the latter, may be withholding significant details or exaggerating scientific results in order to persuade the

Following the primary release of aspartame in 1981, the occurrence of many brain diseases suspiciously began to grow.

The debate between naturally derived sugars and low-calorie artificial sweeteners has been going on for years now. As our population’s obesity rate grows every year and health concerns related to weight-control grows along with it, natural sugar is scrutinized and we are told to keep away from it as it is our enemy. Over the last couple of decades, we have been introduced to more and more varieties of artificial sweeteners promising to deliver the same sweetness or even more sweetness than natural sugar (some offer as much as 200 times more sweetness than sugar) but with a much lower calorie content, or some even no calories at all. Artificial sweeteners such as Splenda, Sweet n’ Low, NutraSweet, and Equal have become popular as “better alternatives” to table sugar, promising to help battle weight gain and actually assist in losing weight. However, does this make it the healthier option? As with all things, both natural sugar and artificial sugar have their pros and cons, but in order to find the best option in regards to our health and futures, it’s important to weigh them according to scientific findings and research.

Advertisement and commercial industries portray table sugar, and other artificial sweeteners as fuel needed by the body. Though body and body cells need sugar as fuel source. The body mechanism is just like the case of engine, there are bad fuels which can destroy engine. Table sugar is just a bad fuel for the body. Several research studies have arraigned sugar first culprit for the epidemics of complicated health problems such as diabetes, obesity, heart disease and cancer. Worst of it, several research now ranking sugar as addictive substance as drugs.

“Artificial Sweeteners: Sugar-Free, but at What Cost?” Harvard Health Blog, Harvard Medical School, 12 Dec. 2016, www.health.harvard.edu/blog/artificial-sweeteners-sugar-free-but-at-what-cost-201207165030. Accessed 28 Feb. 2017. Holly Strawbridge is an author for Harvard Health Blog. Strawbridge’s purpose in writing this article was to inform the general public of the dangers of artificial sweeteners. The article mainly briefs over the negative effects of consuming artificial sweeteners, specifically the diseases potentially caused by them. This article speaks more negatively of artificial sweeteners than any other source used. It is also fairly short and direct. It can be determined unbiased and credible due to the fact that it was published through Harvard Medical School. This source would not be optimal for this essay because it provides information showing that artificial sweeteners are unhealthy and lead to weight