Oh woe is me.... My beloved Diet Pepsi is sweetened by Aspartame.... I know, I know... what did I expect.....Pixie Dust?

Well, I just couldn't let the whole aspartame thing go... (you know me and my conspiracy theories) I just.... couldn't .... let it go.

So, today I located the mythical 92 symptoms attributed to Aspartame. It was a scary scary list. But I'm not going to provide you with that list... because, although it said the Department of Health on the pdf... it was just a single page chart, without any other identifying marks.. and honestly, I couldn't find any documentation in the FDA archives.

However, in my effort to find the chart on a government website I wadded through hundreds of documents and dockets regarding the dangers of aspartame. Some people actually used the Aspartame studies as precedents for .... if you can believe this..... discarding case studies or petitions ... So, without further adieu.... Here is what I found interesting today.... AND I have included the links to the documents I found at the government sites.

Four interesting facts:

1) According to the FDA, you would need to drink 21 cans of Diet Soda sweetened with Aspartame a day to get cancer. (doesn't that imply a cancer risk... ok ok, so the average person would have to drink a lot of soda... but still)

2) Singulair has aspartame

3) augmentin has aspartame

4) There are literally hundreds of FDA articles about how to label the risks of aspartame on ingredient labels, mostly due to PKU (or something like that which is an allergy to a specific amino acid or something)

OK... here are three intersting snippets and their link to the original document.

The amino acid risk ... this is just one of hundreds of documents regarding this particular sensitivity.

A recent report on amino acids prepared by the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology concluded that even healthy men who take single or incomplete mixtures of amino acids as dietary supplements are engaging in a potentially harmful practice. According to the report, other groups taking these supplements are at an even greater risk of possible adverse effects and should not use them without responsible medical supervision.

In large doses, phenylalanine may make some people irritable or cause insomnia. In addition, this amino acid should be avoided by people with phenylketonuria (PKU), a birth defect caused by the body's inability to metabolize phenylalanine. (Diet products made with aspartame [NutraSweet] contain phenylalanine at low, safe levels for people who don't have PKU and must bear labels warning people with PKU of the presence of this amino acid.)

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/CONSUMER/CON00207.htm

When you read this one... you will understand and just say... what? It looks like the fact that aspartame has not been labeled dangerous even in view of the evidence... is being used as a precedent to get a different drug approved.

In 1986, the Community Nutrition Institute ("CNI') filed a petition with the HHS seeking an immediate ban of aspartame, pursuant to an "imminent hazard" provision, which claimed that aspartame causes neurological damage (e.g., seizures) or eye damage in a significant portion of consumers. 15' To support that claim, CNI relied primarily on anecdotal data concerning epileptic seizures nd eye damage, including over 3,000 reports allegedly associated with aspartame collected by FDA over a two year period, a review of a portion of the FDA AERs conducted by the Centers for Disease Control ("CDC"), letters and case reports collected by several physicians, and even an animal study.

However, HHS concluded that this information was insufficient to establish that an "imminent hazard" was present, explaining that "[the evidence submitted by the petitioners] is not of the type that, standing in and of itself, establishes a link between aspartame consumption and possible harm to public health."152 HHS further explained that the type of information presenter was insufficient to "materially affect the scientific determination that aspartame has been shown to be safe for its approved uses, "Is3 because the information was not reliable or concrete."‘54

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/Apr03/040803/95n-0304-c003907-01-vol338.pdf

And Finally....Here's the one I wasn't even looking for... that really really gets me.... It supports my conspiracy leanings... and frankly, although doesn't shock me... does sadden me.

This is an excerpt from

United States Food Safety System

E. Economic Factors

As a general rule, U.S. law requires cost-benefit analysis of regulations (Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Flexibility Act). This general rule does not apply where cost-benefit analysis is prohibited by law. Cost-benefit analysis is not applicable to most food safety decisions. Rather, these food safety decisions are based solely upon science and risk analysis. For example, FDA is not permitted to consider economic factors in determining whether a food additive, color additive, or animal drug is safe, and therefore allowed to be approved. In these determinations, economic factors are forbidden at the risk management step as well as, of course, the risk assessment step. Likewise, EPA is generally not permitted to consider economic factors in determining whether, with respect to human dietary risks, a pesticide is "safe."

There are some situations in which consideration of economic factors in food safety decisions is required or permitted. For example, a 1994 statute created the Office of Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis in USDA (Pub. L.103-354). This office's primary role is to review drafts of USDA's "major regulations" to provide an added assurance that they are based upon sound scientific, technical, and economic analysis. A "major rule" is one that concerns human health, safety, or the environment and that has an annual economic impact of at least $100 million. For major USDA food safety regulations, this statute requires USDA to conduct a thorough analysis that makes clear the nature of the risk, alternative ways of reducing it, the reasoning that justifies the proposed rule, and a comparison of the likely costs and benefits of reducing the risk. The consideration of costs and benefits is for the purpose of identifying efficient ways of mitigating risk. This thorough analysis should describe the uncertainty and variability inherent in these analyses along with an evaluation of how these factors affect the outcome of the analyses. (Because few food safety regulations have exceeded the $100 million threshold for treatment as a major rule, the main contribution in the food safety area of the Office of Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis, since its creation in 1995, has been its review of the Pathogen Reduction and Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points proposed and final regulation.)

Further discussion of consideration of economic factors is found in paragraphs 209-213.

http://www.foodsafety.gov/~fsg/fssyst4.html

And so, it would seem... that although the paper is saying that no economic factor should be considered at the risk of health factors... it is also saying... if it's big business... we will really really really need to weight the health factors.

And so in closing.

So... there is a huge controversy over the long term effects of aspartame.

Since I am NOT a scientist... I can't tell you one way or another which is the correct path to take.

I do know that ... The FDA approved cigarettes... and has not banned them ... even though they have been proved to cause cancer.

hhmmmmmmm.... could that fall under the: Economic Factors thingy again?

Well, thanks for listening. Have a great day!