Another striking aspect of the study was the fact that the rats in the independent study were allowed to die a natural death; rats in the Searle study were killed after two years, which is one-third less than their normal, three-year lifespan. The significance of this lies in the fact that the Searle study necessarily could not track cancers that developed in the later stages of the rats' lives. A two-year-old rat (the age at which the Searle rats were killed) is the equivalent in age of a 53-year-old human being. But plenty of cancers show up after the age of 53 in humans, so the ability of the new study to show these potentials cancers is important.
Finally, very striking is the fact that Donald Rumsfeld (yes...that Donald Rumsfeld) was the head of Searle when Searle was seeking FDA approval for aspartame. His move into political life coincided with the approval of the supplement sweetener. Critics of the aspartame approval decision, who initiated a lawsuit to stop the approval, also moved into high-level government positions, and the lawsuit was dropped. Coincidence? Hmmm. I have no way of knowing, but it doesn't make me feel increased confidence in the FDA's approval process!
I'd like to end my post with a very important quote taken from my last source:
"Finally, though, I think it's very, very suspicious that every single study funded by aspartame manufacturers revealed no problems, but independently-funded studies did find problems."
In short, it's better to be safe than sorry in my point of view. Why take the risk of consuming a chemical which many doctors state CAN be harmful? Is it a risk you honestly want to take? It HAS been proven that it causes many minors severe headaches, memory loss, etc.. it may not show direct harm to you, but I feel in the long-run, the consequences of consuming such a product will hit you.
Finally, very striking is the fact that Donald Rumsfeld (yes...that Donald Rumsfeld) was the head of Searle when Searle was seeking FDA approval for aspartame. His move into political life coincided with the approval of the supplement sweetener. Critics of the aspartame approval decision, who initiated a lawsuit to stop the approval, also moved into high-level government positions, and the lawsuit was dropped. Coincidence? Hmmm. I have no way of knowing, but it doesn't make me feel increased confidence in the FDA's approval process!
I'd like to end my post with a very important quote taken from my last source:
"Finally, though, I think it's very, very suspicious that every single study funded by aspartame manufacturers revealed no problems, but independently-funded studies did find problems."
In short, it's better to be safe than sorry in my point of view. Why take the risk of consuming a chemical which many doctors state CAN be harmful? Is it a risk you honestly want to take? It HAS been proven that it causes many minors severe headaches, memory loss, etc.. it may not show direct harm to you, but I feel in the long-run, the consequences of consuming such a product will hit you.
