Eu Oks Aspartame

[Chinahand]

The EU has undertaken a review of the scientific literature relating to Aspartame and said it isn't carcenogenic. Do you trust the Bureaucrats with your health? If not, who do you believe and why do you trust them? Is a bloke down the pub, or some internet site more or less trustworthy than a pan-government body?

 

Check out: BBC Story

 

The risks to do with Aspartame have been debated before: just one example, but I thought the BBC story was interesting for at least 3 reasons.

 

Firstly it shows how confusing and unclear science can be: one study tested 1800 rats and had all sorts of confusing results. Personally I'd like a few more details from the people rebuting the results: how can they say:

The AFC also looked at the incidence of kidney tumours and changes to the kidney believed to have been caused by aspartame, but concluded this was an outcome specific to rats.

Secondly the fact a lot of research is going into Aspartame: the UK Food Standards Agency, The EU Food Safety Authority, the European Ramazzini Foundation of Oncology and Environmental Sciences, the UK's independent expert group, the Committee On Carcinogenicity.

 

And Thirdly because it tries to quantify the dangers via a measure called the Acceptable Daily Intake:

 

The ADI is the level of additive considered to be safe if consumed every day over a lifetime without risk to health.

 

For aspartame, the ADI is set by the European Commission's Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) at 40 milligrams per kilogram of body weight.

 

An adult would have to drink about 14 cans a day of diet soft drink, or consume about 80 sachets of sweetener to reach this amount.

14 Cans a day for life: that's a lot, but maybe some people could get close!

[LoneWolf]

Hey Chinahand how did you get on to this one ?

Surely I am not the only person who had never heard of aspartame

[i have now though!]

[Chinahand]

Its Nutra-Sweet, its in 90% of sugar free products!

 

I'm interested in it as a science communication issue and due to the fact there are various conspiracies about it ... Donald Rumsfeld peddling carcenogens and big business over-ruling Health & Safety concerns.

 

If the debate catches on I'll probably post my opinions, but I'm not concerned enough to debate with myself!

[Bill Posters]

It is vile stuff and I avoid it at all costs. I heard that it is produced by an American company but NOT used in their domestic products.

[Chinahand]

I heard that it is produced by an American company but NOT used in their domestic products.

 

That is totally and utterly incorrect. Aspartame is used in thousands of products throughout the US. It is also the main area where its safety is being contested: Americans like law suits!

 

Edited to add: the US consumes 8040 tons of the stuff per year according to Foodnavigator-USA.

[VinnieK]

The EU has undertaken a review of the scientific literature relating to Aspartame and said it isn't carcenogenic. Do you trust the Bureaucrats with your health? If not, who do you believe and why do you trust them? Is a bloke down the pub, or some internet site more or less trustworthy than a pan-government body?

 

It's a bit unfair to characterize this conclusion as being the decision of bureaucrats fumbling with furrowed brows through the scientific literature. The report upon which the decision is based is the work of a panel made up of nineteen microbiologists, toxicologists, and the like.

 

The AFC also looked at the incidence of kidney tumours and changes to the kidney believed to have been caused by aspartame, but concluded this was an outcome specific to rats.

 

They did no such thing. Instead they concluded, using the given evidence that it was an outcome specific to the particular group of rats being used for the test, and that it was due to background influences disrupting the original study. A similar case is in the assertion that rats given doses of Aspartame were more prone to lymphomas, but the EU panal in turn show that the incidences of this did not display a relationship between the varying doses of Aspartame given to them and the response of the lymphomas - i.e. that it was the result of background influences, most likely (in their view) of an unrelated condition caused by the kind of chronic respiratory diseases that are relatively common in colonies of test rats and difficult to identify prior to testing.

 

Regardless of whether or not their explanation is the best possible, the panel did not simply make some unclear and confusing assertion that the condition only applies to rats. This kind of confusion is a result of not having first considered the relevant data (http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/afc/afc_opinions/1471_en.html)

 

I'm not arguing here that the EU panel's conclusions are correct and that Aspartame is safe, but the debate is not one involving pro-Aspartame scientists drawing vague conclusions and 'bureaucrats' issuing dictats that are based on no greater knowledge than that of 'a bloke in the pub'.

[Crozza]

.