Arrowman

OK, I couldn't resist. Veil, here is a critique of (some of) the interview your grandmother sent you. Dear Grandma....

There's so much material to work with in this interview; for the sake of brevity I will stick to the more important or interesting (and immediately obvious) points.

This does not purport to be a detailed or complete rebuttal of the claims made in the interview. I will stay away from the more detailed medical claims, and the claims of conspiracy across the industry, the FDA etc - these are beyond my capacity and time to research and rebut fully. However it must be said, given the lack of credibility apparent in this and other anti-aspartame sources, why would one bother to go any further?

To start with, and given my earlier references to phenylketonurics, I'd like to quote this from Matt Lowry's web site: <a href="http://doesaspartamekill.iwarp.com/" target="_blank">http://doesaspartamekill.iwarp.com/</a>

Yes, Matt, it certainly is. But I suspect people like Stoddard can't even spell "phenylketonurics". "Poison", "Death!!!" and "Comspiracy!!!!" are much more familiar words to them.

Now to the Stoddard interview....

For "qualified as...", read "has been paid by plaintiffs to testify as..." - there is no "qualification" for expert witness status and no inherent credibility attached. Er - and the outcome of those court proceeding was -? I mean, aspartame being such an obvious poison and all, and Stoddard being such an expert and all - I mean, they did win every case, right? Oh? None of them? Must be an FDA conspiracy...

Self-diagnosis by members of the public who have read an anti-aspartame e-mail are not evidence. Throw into the public arena the same amount of misinformation and hype about any other food additive, and I'll lay you dollars to doughnuts that in a years' time 78% of complaints will be about that additive. The fact that this "isn't reported" is because it is valueless information. It's not a "well-hidden secret". Publish just one peer-reviewed, credible scientific study showing widespread adverse effects of Aspartame, and watch the press leap on to it. In fact, I'll go further - given the willingness of the popular media to leap on any assertion of controversy or conspiracy for the sake of ratings or readership, the fact that the media has not run with this one says, I think, more about the credibility of the anti-aspartame cause than perhaps people like Stoddard would care to admit.

If it walks like a duck.... What, pray tell, is the difference between "real" MS (to use but one example) and "Aspartame mimicking MS"? Is it MS, or is it not? And if it is, has a causative connection be proven? And published? If it is not [real MS], then why use the name? It couldn't be for shock value, could it? Could it?

A Google search on "chronic fatigue and immune deficiency syndrome newsletter nutrasweet" turned up dozens of references to this quote; apparently this interview has been published over and again on the internet.

So I tried "cfids.com" and hit this site: <a href="http://www.cfids.com/" target="_blank">http://www.cfids.com/</a> which is the "Fatigue and Fibromyalgia Clinic of Michigan", and which does indeed publish a newsletter. This appears to be just another "altmed" site. Not necessarily the site or newsletter Stoddard is referring to, but a strong candidate in the absence of any clearer reference.

Balance of probabilities - I think Stoddard has simply quoted one of her fellow believers and deliberately phrased the citation to make it sound like an official, mainstream organisation.

Given the statements made by organisations such as the [US] National Multiple Sclerosis Society:
<a href="http://www.nationalmssociety.org/imsfa99-newsconsumer.asp" target="_blank">http://www.nationalmssociety.org/imsfa99-newsconsumer.asp</a>
one might doubt that the "CFIDS Newsletter" is the voice of any scientific or objective source.

<a href="http://doesaspartamekill.iwarp.com/whats_new.html#roberts" target="_blank">http://doesaspartamekill.iwarp.com/whats_new.html#roberts</a>
Say no more.

Just one quote from the above cited web page, from the New England Journal of Medicine:
Dr. Roberts did not apply rigid scientific method to test his hypothesis, but presents it as fact to the general public without previous scrutiny by his peers. He quotes the Wall Street Journal and other newspapers as often as the scientific press. By the time he raises the question of a connection between aspartame and Alzheimer's disease, his credibility will be questioned even by lay readers.

And the reference for the "five deaths reported prior to 1987"? And I'm sorry - but, with all this publicity and heavy research being done by credible physicians such as Dr Roberts, "we don't know the number since then"? Oh, that's right - it's all part of the conspiracy.

TEN PERCENT??? Oh - hang on, take a good look at the label on your bottle of Diet Pepsi. Now take 10% of the Aspartame content - pretty small number, eh? And that's even taking at face value Stoddard's assertion that "it's [Aspartame] about 10% methanol...." - er, excuse me - since when does Aspartame "contain" methanol? She's referring of course to Aspartame producing methanol when it decomposes - but hey, let's not allow accuracy to get in the way of a good scare campaign.

Now, let's have a look at <a href="http://www.aspartame.net/media/info/faqmenu.html" target="_blank">http://www.aspartame.net/media/info/faqmenu.html</a>

where we see that Methanol is a natural and harmless by-product of many foods we eat every day. The methanol produced by aspartame is identical to the methanol produced in much larger amounts from fruits, vegetables and their juices. In fact, a cup of tomato juice provides about six times more methanol than a cup of an aspartame-sweetened soft drink. The amount of methanol in the human diet is nowhere near the levels that cause toxicity. You would have to drink about 675 to 1,690 cans of diet soft drink at one sitting to reach the toxic level.

Biased source? Perhaps. But this is not nutritional rocket science - you'll get the same information (facts) about the methanol of other foods, and its levels of toxicity, from any other reputable source. But, interestingly, you won't get it from an anti-aspartame web site. Much better to just scream "TEN PERCENT METHANOL!" and let the induced fear do the rest.

And yet, the same NSDA is now a user and supporter of aspartame. Were they lying now, or then? Personally I would bet that there was some commercial reason for the opposition in 1983, and the 402(a)(3) reference was just an excuse, not a reason, for the objection. But who knows. And who cares. What the NSDA (a commercial manufacturer's organisation) said (assuming the quote is accurate) in 1983 is just a tad less relevant to this debate than the opinion of medical scientists....

I'm not sure what she's trying to say here - that the FDA should be seizing all aspartame-containing products now, or after they have been spoiled? And what is the point she's trying to make? That there's some sort of favourable treatment (conspiracy) going on here?

And why doesn't the FDA seize all baloney or mortadella? Or pork? Or chicken? I mean, leave that in the sun for a few weeks and it decomposes pretty badly as well.... It's a conspiracy, I tell you!!! Oh, wait - just because a given food product can decompose to include harmful substances (even allowing for that assertion to be true in the case of aspartame) when stored badly, doesn't mean the FDA will "seize" it before the spoilage has occurred.

Or does she mean - after the spoilage? Oh, I don't know - maybe for the same reason the FDA doesn't run around seizing decomposed pork - because the manufacturer withdraws and destroys it themselves, and it is only in rare cases of abuse that the FDA needs to get involved.

Ever tasted a stale soft drink (let alone one that's been stored at 85+ for weeks)? Not good. Doesn't sell. Gets returned by angry customers. Doesn't tend to find its way to market - not because it's poison, but because it tastes like crap.

Fear and loathing! Fear and loathing!

Once again, in the absence of a precise citation I am forced to ask - when she refers to "published warnings about using aspartame and flying" is Stoddard referring to
1. The publication of anecdotes / letters from pilots?
2. A mild warning directed particularly at, for example, phenylketonurics?
3. A formal, officia Navy / Air Force policy / warning?

My guess is it's 1 or 2, but Stoddard would like us to think 3.

Once again - given her [lack of] credibility in the rest of the interview, I'm not inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt and research this one.

Possibly. Certain food colourings are implicated in hyperactive behaviour as well. These are children with epilepsy. They get affected by strobe lights, among many other things.

I'm prepared to accept a caution on this one. Still waiting on the evidence that aspartame causes MS.

Er - and? The result of those hearing was -? Don't tell me the outcome was "inconclusive" - I mean, you'd tell us if it was, wouldn't you? Or is this like the citation of "expert witness" at the start of the interview - "I've been involved in dozens of cases &lt;mumble&gt;and lost all of them. &lt;/mumble&gt;"

Oh, I could go on. But she doesn't deserve it

Arrowman
Who is eagerly approaching his 1000th post

[ August 21, 2002: Message edited by: Arrowman ]</p>

One of the last sane

The anti-aspartame crowd like to carry on about headaches, fainting, seizures and all sorts of neurological problems after drinking aspartame. I always wonder how many people who report headaches, fainting or whatever after downing a Diet Coke are in the unconscious habit of correcting hypoglycemia by downing a Coke? And don't realize it's the sugar in the Coke that has been making them feel better?