Darp, earlier today I responded to your outdated post with documentation as to why aspartame is perfectly safe used as directed in people without some pre-existing health issue.

Before beginning I have to comment on your misunderstanding of toxicology and your mislabeling of toxins. A substance is only toxic when the concentration is achieved at which its effect is achieved. Thus botulinum toxin--one of the most toxic substances-may present an issue from food contamination, but not from the far lower concentrations used in cosmetic surgery applications (Botox). Similarly cyanide is only toxic when ingested at high concentrations, even though it exists at lower concentrations in foods we eat daily. In fact just for that we have an enzyme rhodanase that detoxifies cyanide, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhodanase. Similarly you must understand that aspartame can only be a toxin when its concentration reaches that where consequences are apparent and those concentrations that show an effect are far, far higher than any food application.

Next I respond to your Ankur Vyas paper post claiming: (Quote) A decade-long study of 60,000 women has confirmed that drinking diet soda sweetened with aspartame is linked with a 30 percent increase in heart attack risk and a 50 percent increase in death risk (Unquote).

First, here is a better short summary,
http://now.uiowa.edu/2014/03/ui-study-finds-diet-drinks-associated-heart-trouble-older-women

Second, I have a simple question for him, for you or for anyone thinking this study has risk-assessment relevance at all. The link I provided above notes that (Quote): The association persisted even after researchers adjusted the data to account for demographic characteristics and other cardiovascular risk factors, including body mass index, smoking, hormone therapy use, physical activity, energy intake, salt intake, diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, and sugar-sweetened beverage intake. On average, women who consumed two or more diet drinks a day were younger, more likely to be smokers, and had a higher prevalence of diabetes, high blood pressure, and higher body mass index (Unquote).

But with all these controls, my question is where is any control for the long-known issues of folate or B12 adequacy and/or where is any documentation of the homocysteine or methylation enzyme polymorphism status in these women? Starting about 38 years ago (before aspartame) Tephly et al demonstrated this issue, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=tephly%2Cmethanol%2Cfolate.

My point is that there may have been 60,000 women in this study and the author's may have tried to control some factors, but nothing about this study used the correct or even relevant controls. This paper for all its effort, represents but another of the many failed efforts made to explore the correct variables. In retrospect instead this study simply documents that its large group of women have some pre-existing health issue, but the scope of it further documents how widespread the issues of folate, B12, homocysteine, and related enzyme issues really are in our society.

Let me summarize the seriousness of this matter with a conclusion from an Australian group Beetstra et al: (Quote) The results of this study suggest that moderate folate deficiency has a stronger effect on chromosomal instability than BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations found in breast cancer families, (Unquote), http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16162645.

John E. Garst, Ph.D. (Medicinal Chemistry, Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Nutrition)