.

Are we sensitive to more things now or are we simply noticing things that we were sensitive to all along?

When I was growing up there was nobody with a peanut allergy.  Now other kids are not allowed to bring a peanut butter sandwich to school because of all of the kids who might be allergic.  Sure, there's a lot of overreaction, but the numbers still seem higher.

There are many things that were once thought safe that later on were found to be quite toxic to the human body. Asbestos is one that comes to mind, Thalidomide is another.

It's interesting to note that until several years ago, there was no disease clinically named fibromyalgia, and similarly no condition called chronic fatigue syndrome. It is also interesting to note that these maladys started to appear about the same time as aspartame was appearing on the market in appreciable amounts. Both of the afore mentioned conditions along with Lupus which has similar symptoms, are now being linked with aspartame consumption. My particular reaction was mild compared to other more serious heart rhythm problems that are related to interuptions in the electric impulses that control the heart rhythm. Formic acid is a known neurotoxin, and as such there is now interest in a possible link between aspartame and some heart related conditions. As seems to be usual in these cases, the evidence starts to accumulate slowly, then there is much debate over the validity of the evidence and arguments against by the vested interests, and then finally, acknowledgement that a problem may in fact exist. All of this can take years to develop.

A really good indicator of how the debate is being perceived elsewhere in the corporate world, as in The Coca-Cola company that has been using aspartame in it's soft drinks for many years now. Coca-Cola has been working with Cargil for a few years on creating a sweetner made from Stevia, a natural, non-caloric sweetner derived from a plant. Coca-Cola and Cargil are calling their new sweetner Rebiana and it's being developed for use in Coca-Colas's diet soft drinks (for starts). Pepsi-Cola apparently has expressed interest and possible support for this new sweetner as well. As the plant that produces Stevia is naturally occuring it can't be patented, however, a particular sweetner compound with Stevia as it's main ingredient apparently can, and that's what Cargil has created. Until recently, the FDA wouldn't consider approving Stevia as a natural sweetner despite the fact that there is ample evidence of it being used safely in South America and Asia for several decades. It's easy to understand if one follows the money trail. Monsanto stood to lose a great deal of business should a new, non-controversial and safe natural sweetner suddenly win approval by FDA. But, low and behold, now that another chemical giant Cargil was involved, FDA was suddenly receptive to hearing the case for Stevia. Again, follow the money trail. Well, all it takes is clout it seems (read MONEY). Cargil has won FDA approval for Rebiana and it's already in grocery stores in a sweetner product called Truvia. Look for it in Coca-Cola's Sprite soda soon in a grocery store near you. The larger corporate interests it appears, have shifted away from Monsanto's interests and towards Cargil, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, et al. But, it seems that Cargil, unlike Searle and Monsanto, has been a lot more cautious and responsible with Rebiana. And for Coca-Cola's and Pepsi-cola's parts, it seems they're looking for a way off the aspartame bandwagon before the wheels come off. A little ass saving before the big health impact of aspartame is suddenly revealed, perhaps. The conclusion here may be a bit speculative on my part, but the kind of speculation that is rarely very far off when it's based on big money interests.

I don't know if this affects your money trail or not, but supposedly the aspartame patent expired in 1992 , Monsanto sold its aspartame operations in 2000, and at this point some suppliers have discontinued producing aspartame due to overcapacity (possibly due to lowered demand).   I would tend to suspect companies shifting away from aspartame is probably more near-term bottom-line economics than fearing a possible health risk exposure way down the road (which would probably be contained from a financial standpoint by separate entities and maybe insurance.)

don't let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory. :)

I did a high school report on this stuff back in the 90's.  As with all studies (I'm in the medical field now) it is prudent to ask lots of questions, who did the study, how was it done, where was it published, etc, etc?  It is amazing to me what piss poor studies get done at well known and highly respected universities.  Hint all medical school/residents have some study requirement, no requirement that it be done correctly (it's called learning).

To sum it up most of the studies are done on mice/rats (not a perfect human model) and the amounts that are given would never be consumed even by the heaviest of sugar/diet coke drinkers.

Probally not the best example.  The asbestos dangers were way overblown, and Thalidomide isn't toxic to the human body, but extremely tertogenic to fetuses.  In my mind this was probally one of the greatest FDA sucess stories (in that they recognized the lack of research and didn't allow it in the US, while european MD were praising it's effects on pregnant women.)

Maybe dioxins are a better example?

While that's probably true for Monsanto, it should have the opposite effect on Coca-Cola: Lower cost per unit for aspartame, greater profit for Coke-Cola. I would think that it's overcapacity (market saturation) that's responsible for the glut of aspartame on the market, not lower demand. The sales of diet drinks and all other foods containing aspartame would have to have dropped for demand to have softened. I could believe that's possible in the last few months with the worsening economic climate, but not the period just prior.

Given the oversupply of aspartame and what one would suspect is a supply driven surpressed price, it's all the more curious that Coca-Cola would be looking to switch (or perhaps supplement) aspartame for what has to be a more expensive alternative, Rebiana. There's got to be another reason. Coca-Cola is far to shrewd to just abondon higher profits for a substitute sweetner just because it's "natural" or "green" or whatever. This is the same Coca-Cola that 26 or 27 years ago pulled their mainstay product, Coca-Cola off the shelves in favor of "New Coke". Once the public thought they had lost the old Coke, they clammored for it. Coca-Cola shrewdly "re-introduced" it as "Coca-Cola Classic" and sales soared. No, these aren't  dummies running Coca-Cola. Interestinly, I predicted Coca-Cola's strategy at that time when they first implemented it and I also predicted that once the old Coca-Cola was back (as "Classic"), that the "New Coke" would quietly be phased out (seen any lately?). Not particularly brilliant on my part to recognize Coca-Cola's strategy, but certainly brilliant marketing on their part to have created it.  

So, why is Coca-Cola in the process of adopting a new sweetner that hasn't even recovered the developmental costs yet? Can't be because it's cheaper and will cause Coca-Cola to enjoy greater profit margins. There's got to be more to it...  

Could be as simple as it tastes better.

Could also be they want to get all the people who are sensitive to aspartame, or think they are, back drinking Coke.

I have a good idea of how much the aspartame in a can of Coke costs, and the cost of the sweetener is nothing compared to selling 2 or 3% more product.

Why is this in the survival forum???

Maybe because some people want to survive whatever (presumed to be) toxins there might be in the food supply?

Would it make you feel better if we were discussing aspartame as a substance that turned people into zombies?

Yeah, but what if it turns out that aspartame is the ONLY thing that kills zombies??

I get a queasy feeling from any artificial sweetener I have tried. Maybe it's my body trying to warn  me about something.
We've evolved for millions of years to eat the food that comes from plants and animals, I don't see any
good reason to ingest random crap from a laboratory unless it's necessary.

I was wondering for a long time what was making me feel that way too, and I finally made the connection to diet soda. I thought it was the caffeine, because I dont drink coffee or tea, just figured I was sensitive to it. Turns out t is the artificial sweeteners. Stopped drinking the diet and I feel better and lost 5 pounds....I think the stuff is no good. I am also concerned about the genetically modified Monsanto stuff.

I can't ingest Aspartame.  Gives me bad headaches.



Can someone explain to me why the FDA recently said that the food industry no longer has to disclose Aspartame content in their food?