Back to Aspartame

Continuing his assault on artificial sweeteners, Spurlock writes:

"There were far more troubling studies possibly linking aspartame to birth defects and brain tumors, one conducted by the FDA itself as early as 1981, but they were overlooked in the rush to get NutraSweet approved and marketed." (p. 98)

Spurlock again seems to have fallen for an urban legend.

Let's go back to one of Spurlock's own sources: the FDA Consumer newsletter. The issue Spurlock himself cites for another claim says the following:

FDA calls aspartame, sold under trade names such as NutraSweet and Equal, one of the most thoroughly tested and studied food additives the agency has ever approved. The agency says the more than 100 toxicological and clinical studies it has reviewed confirm that aspartame is safe for the general population.

Of course, Spurlock writes that the FDA "rushed" the sweetener to market, implying that the agency bowed to political pressure, in which case -- I guess -- we shouldn't believe what it writes.

Okay. Then how 'bout the British medical journal The Lancet? The American Council on Science and Health? MIT? Time magazine?

All of have considered the claims Spurlock publishes as fact, and thoroughly rebuked them as hysterical Internet scaremongering.

The most cursory of Internet research turned these articles up. In fact, a visit to Snopes would have sufficed to find them all. Instead, Spurlock cites the very sorts of quackish, alarmist websites the FDA, respected medical journals, academics, and other journalists caution anyone with a lick of sense from taking seriously.

He's that eager to demonize Big Food.

So what of that study that perported to link aspartame to brain tumors? It was conducted by a couple of Washington University researchers who apparently saw a 10% rise in incidence in brain tumors shortly after the sweetener was put on the U.S. market in the early 1980s. They didn't even check to see if the people who got brain tumors after 1983 had actually consumed any aspartame. Pure, speculative correlation. Bizarrely, they overlooked the fact that that rise was merely the tail end of a decade-long rise in brain cancer that began in the early 1970s -- well before aspartame hit the market. Beginning in the mid-1980s incidents of brain cancer began a decade-long leveling off -- with aspartame use on the rise all the while.

Spurlock, again, bites on an urban legend and Internet hoax. And one that, again, could have been disproven with as little effort as a Google search.

Comments

[John H.]

Radley, you've outdone yourself. A truly excellent little side project to your blog, and I look forward to reading more about Spurlock and his idiot claims.

[Eric]

I'll second that. This is a lot of fun so far. Well played, Radley.

[Razor]

I'll second, er third that. All that I'd ask, not that I have any rights or standing to do so, is that if and when you come across something that he may have a point on, that you publish that too. Shows a careful reading, not a slanted one.
That said, Spurlock must reap what he sows.

[WhiskeyJuvenile]

It's cute also that the "quackish, alarmist website" has numbers within parenthesis, as though it is referring to a source, when there are no sources given at all.

[ann arbor is overrated]

This is excellent. I've really enjoyed your work on obesity and the war on pain doctors. I've been waiting for someone to demolish this one-man cottage industry of indie hysteria, and I can't think of anyone better. (Plus I have a thing about single-issue blogs.)

[Lucas Wiman]

The idea that aspartame could be toxic to individuals without phenylketoneuria (a rare metabolic disorder which prevents the proper metabolism of phenylalanine) is laughable. Aspartame is made from two amino acids present in all cells in your body, and methanol (a very mildly toxic compound). At body temperature and low pH (like your stomach), it breaks completely down into the constituent compounds, which are totally nontoxic at the levels found in artificially sweetened products. The Spurlock would cite this canard as fact would make me question his integrity if it weren't for the fact that his movie thoroughly convinced me he has none.

[Mark]

Actually, Joseph Mercola (whom you referenced) is a highly respected physician. He has the number 1 or 2 (I can't remember) most visited website among alternative health practitioners. From a personal standpoint, I find his advice to be very prudent and conservative among the many differing viewpoints in the alternative health community. He is certainly not a "quack," and this would be evident if one took the time to parse and test the advice he recommends. I find it very wise to look at sites like quackwatch.com and snopes.com with a grain of salt. They mean to calm the rampant speculation and unprofessionalism of the internet, but I think they paint with too broad a brush and substitute real logical and empirical scrutiny with references to authority. Morgan Spurlock is an extremist, and I had to be very patient to watch his movie or his shows, but when I got past the fact that he is very naive about quite a lot of his subject matter, I realized that I share many of his fears and speculations, although from a differing, and hopefully more objective, perspective.

My 2 cents

[Mark (Other)]

You do realize who was instrumental in getting NutraSweet to the market?

None other than...

Don Rumsfeld. The reach of the neocons is everywhere! Hide the women and children and meet me out back with a pitchfork.

Seriously, though, he was involved, although I think the anti-NutraSweet issue has little to do with him.

[NotAHomeopath]

Sniffing glue isn't that toxic if you do it in small amounts. But there are options such as not sniffing glue. So why not just - not sniff glue, just to be safe? Even if only 1 in 16,000 people are affected by taking nutrasweet/aspartame - that still means that one in every 16,000 people might get brain damage from taking aspartame. Now think of some undiscovered side affects... maybe 1 in 8000 people will get the undiscovered so far side affect of aspartame. For example, although 1 in 16,000 is the current known amount of people that aspartame affects - this doesn't mean it is set in stone. Many drugs for example are proven safe but then 30 years later "oh there is also another side affect and we didn't know this 30 years ago so we are removing the drug from the market".

Now, how hard is it to avoid aspartame? Pretty darn easy - there are alternatives. Is it worth the risk? I don't think so. Even 1 in 16,000 people is a lot of people considering the world's population - and considering that maybe in 30 years that estimate will be changed to 1 in 5000 people if they find other side effects that they didn't first discover in the previous 30 years.

This message is coming from someone who doesn't use or believe in homeopathy, nor do I follow any specific alternative medicine.

I'm not saying that it is dangerous for everyone to use aspartame - I'm saying that it is stupid to use it just as I think it is stupid to go driving on streets every day where one in 5000 people get killed from drunk drivers (driving on those streets once in a while is fine, just as drinking diet coke would be okay once in a while).

See the problem with Aspartame is that you may now KNOW that you are allergic to it (the people that receive brain damage from it). 1 in 16000 people may have this disease that causes brain damage when they are exposed to Aspartame - but do these 1 in 16000 people know that they have that disease? WHere did this 1 in 16000 number come from - how do I for example know whether or not I am 1 of those 16000 people?

I bet the 1 in 16000 number came from REPORTED incidents of the disease, not actual head count of the entire population that has the disease. Again, this 1 in 16,000 number may be reduced to 1 in 5000 at some point in the future. So is it worth it to take aspartame? I think not. Again, don't go driving on roads where 1 in 5000 people get killed from drunk driving - don't go looking for those roads and driving on them each day. Don't drink diet coke each day. You have alternatives. It's not like your life RELIES on diet coke and aspartame. If your life RELIED ON aspartame then it would be different.

[Darth Chaos]

Well, recently the CSPI sent out a press release that says aspartame is linked to cancer, so I wrote them email and asked them why they have praised aspartame in the past and why at the same time they villified a NATURAL sugar substitute called Stevia. I told them that they are a bunch of hypocrites who are conspiring with their controlled opposition (the Center for Consumer Freedom), and it took all of my willpower to refrain from outright saying that both phony organizations are run by Zionist eugenicists (Michael F. Jacobson and Richard Berman)...but at least I managed. Both organizations are guilty of conspiring with the criminal Big Food and Big Pharma cartels, including the FDA, in eugenics, murder, and genocide.

[Darth Chaos]

I'd like to know Spurlock's official position on Stevia. Considering how he's a shill for Rockefeller-controlled groups (CSPI and National Action Against Obesity), he's probably fine with the CSPI/FDA dual-jihad against Stevia.

Oh, and if you criticize soy products made from Monsanto's GMO soybeans, scum like Spurlock smear you as a shill for te meat and dairy industries (which by the way are also controlled by Monsanto).

Morgan Spurlock, you are nothing but a scum shill for Monsanto and the Rockefellers.