Aspartame structure image courtesy of 3D Chem

Several months ago, this study came out reporting that Aspartame is safe. I’m not interested in arguing the merits of whether aspartame, or artificial sweeteners in general (such as Splenda, saccharin and others), are safe. That is, I’m not going to delve into the claims that aspartame, et al cause cancer and thyroid issues or other maladies. Finding an unbiased source either for or against artificial sweeteners is a tall order.

What I do want to discuss is whether, assuming these sweeteners are 100% safe and pose no threat to human health over long-term usage, they are healthful inclusions into a whole foods-based diet. First, there’s the notion that humans have evolved a very active “sweet tooth” to help us find highly concentrated sources of energy, like honey and fruits, in a world where caloric intake was unsure. Second, I and many others will attest to having no problem controlling sugar intake unless that sweet tooth is activated. I can avoid, avoid, avoid sugary stuff, but I can’t take just one bite. It’s as if there is an evolved mechanism that says “Sugar! Eat as much as possible!” Perhaps there is.

So where am I running with this? Looking at the claim that we are evolved to seek sweetness, it is easy to see why we love sugary goodness so much. Unfortunately, we are surrounded day-in and day-out by chocolates, cakes, pies, donuts, and soft drinks, so the mechanism that made us eat as much honey or fruit as possible on the rare occasions that we found it now has us seeking out so much sugar that it becomes a poison. And if activation of the sweet tooth is enough to kick off a binge in the average person, is it wise to activate it, even if the offending agent is an artificial sweetener? It seems that a constant inclusion of aspartame or Splenda in the diet only keeps the tongue expecting sweetness, lending to easily stepping back into real sugar consumption. I have no data to back this up, just a conjecture.

Another thought is that artificial sweeteners are man-made chemicals, not naturally occurring substances. While there isn’t much in the way of evidence either way in terms of long-term usage, I can’t see where putting anything made in a lab into the body is a good idea. Think of partially hydrogenated fats, a man-made solution to Mother Nature’s “problem”. Given a choice between a real Coke or a Diet Coke once a month, you’re probably better off to go with the Diet. But if you are swapping your 6-cans-a-day Coke habit for a 6-cans-a-day Diet Coke habit, your better bet is probably to get off of the sweetness all together and help the sweet tooth fade away rather than trying to fool it. Obviously you have to make the determination of what you will and won’t put in your body. Hopefully something I’ve said here makes you give it some thought.

There is also some evidence for, and some evidence against, a small secretion of insulin due to the sweet taste of aspartame. If the mouth primes the body for what’s coming down the hatch, it tastes “sugar” and says “All hands on deck. Prepare the insulin.” Again, it’s difficult to find any hard data either way, but it makes sense considering that digestion begins in the mouth.

I will close with this though: perhaps the fact that this study was funded by Ajinomoto, a maker and distributor of aspartame, could have something to do with the glowing report.

If you enjoyed this post, share it on StumbleUpon or Health Ranker (or both!)

Other Stuff You'll Enjoy:
• Artificial Sweeteners Linked to Weight Gain
• Stevia
• Five Worst Dietary Trangressions
• Soft Drinks
• Digest - The Animal Edition, Leukemia, Strawberries, Grapes, Aging, and Seasonality

Posts from 1 year ago:
New York City Bans Trans Fats

 Print This Post

Tags: artificial sweetener, aspartame, insulin, saccharine, Splenda, stevia, Sugar and Fake Foods