Pepsi To Stop Using Aspartame

An anonymous reader writes: Pepsi believes sales of diet soda are falling because of aspartame and how the general public thinks it's a dangerous substance to consume. Even though the FDA describes aspartame as “one of the most thoroughly tested and studied food additives the agency has ever approved,” Pepsi has decided to stop using it. Aspartame removal is being turned into a marketing campaign of sorts, with "Now Aspartame Free" printed on cans.

Comments

danger vs taste

[Anonymous Coward]

Dangerous smangerous. I don't drink diet because it tastes terrible.

Re:danger vs taste

[Anonymous Coward]

and i see fat people drinking it all the time so it doesn't seem to be working

Re:danger vs taste

[Frag-A-Muffin]

and i see fat people drinking it all the time so it doesn't seem to be working

That's because they're usually ordering it with a Double Big Mac combo ;)

I've always found it funny when people order like that. As if the diet pop is gonna counter the 2234872184732 calories of a double big mac you're about to wolf down. Not to mention the fries (which of course has been super sized!)

When I go to McDonalds, there's no pretense of nutrition or calorie reduction. I order a regular combo with a regular coke :) Diet drinks taste awful anyways.

Re:danger vs taste

[ShanghaiBill]

That's because they're usually ordering it with a Double Big Mac combo ;)

Nope, it is because diet soda makes you fat. It promotes the wrong kind of gut bacteria. The sweet taste also triggers insulin production, when causes hunger when the sugar that the tongue predicted doesn't show up in the stomach. So people end up eating even more to compensate. Sales of Diet Pepsi are falling because people are becoming more educated about just how unhealthy that crap is. If you are thirsty, try tap water.

Re:danger vs taste

[dirk]

I never understood this type of reaction. Yes, they are eating a boatload of calories through everything else, but at least they are cutting out a few hundred with the diet coke. Yes, it won't make them thin, but at least they are doing something to try and get healthier and possible lose a little weight, which they should be applauded for. You are probably the same type of person that goes to gym and tells people they should just quit because they aren't lifting enough weight or only doing cardio. The fact is, they are doing something, which is more than some people do and should be encouraged.

Re:danger vs taste

[Anonymous Coward]

The shitty test you're talking about didn't even *test* aspartame, it tested saccharine, which hasn't been in a diet drink for several decades. More shitty "science" that shitty newspapers can't bother to actually do 2.5 seconds of research on. The last major saccharine based diet drink was Tab. Try ordering one today. You'll look like Marty McFly in 1955.

Considering the ridiculous research that's been done in the past with sweeteners, I still won't trust it, because the research has all too often been shit. Did you know that the thouroughly debunked cancer study on Aspartame fed the mice the equivalent of 14 *cases* of pop every single day? Yeah, the same amount that is in over 300 cans of pop a day. And it still didn't actually give the mice cancer. If you drank that much today, guess what you'd die of: Water poisoning.

I have no idea why the research on artificial sweeteners is so bad all the time, but I have a sneaking suspicion that HFCS producers are behind it.

Re:danger vs taste

[Anonymous Coward]

but at least they are doing something to try and get healthier and possible lose a little weight

I am overweight myself, but that there is a load of horseshit. "Diet anything" is the exact opposite of doing something to get healthier and lose weight. It's an expression of a want or need, but it's also as clear a sign as you can possibly give that you're not going to do anything to achieve it. Going from fatty to healthy takes some serious changes in one's lifestyle, and ordering diet proves that you're not willing to make those changes but instead want to keep on eating and drinking like you're used to, just not so many calories please. That doesn't work.

Re:danger vs taste

[beelsebob]

Except that if you actually go and find sources other than a sensationalist news article, you'll find several scientific studies that show that this is bullshit. Insulin production is triggered by the presence of glucose, and does not occur with the presence of aspartame even in high concentrations.

Re:danger vs taste

[cayenne8]

It would be nice if, when they make them print the ingredients on the label....and where it says "sugar"..have it also give the % of the recommended daily allowances of sugar for the avg. person's diet, like it does with other stats like carbs, protein and fat.

I saw an interesting program on Netflix the other day called Fed Up, and I didn't realize till now, that for sugar it is pretty much the only ingredient that does NOT have a daily % listed. It is due to the sugar lobby fighting reports from years back showing sugar is the real killer and reason for obesity in so many folks.

I doubt those colas would fee comfy showing that one can was like 120% of the recommended daily allowances of sugar for a day. 120% just being a made up number....I think it is in the ball park, but don't know for this posting.

Re:danger vs taste

[Twinbee]

How about Xylitol instead?

Re:danger vs taste

[thaylin]

oh really?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

just the taste of a sweetner can trigger insulin production, and therefore is triggered with aspartame.

Re:danger vs taste

[Andy Dodd]

Last I heard, the saccharin mess was a combination of two things:
1) They used insanely high doses for that study too, if you replaced the saccharin with sugar you would've killed the rats rather quickly.
2) The findings that DID occur were later proven to be specific to rat metabolism that did NOT apply to monkeys including the "human" subvariant.

Re:danger vs taste

[Andy Dodd]

I forgot to mention though that saccharin is still dead in the market because it has a really strong aftertaste.

Re:danger vs taste

[Rei]

Aspartame does break down into poison. One of the components it breaks down into is methanol. Wood alcohol. The stuff that makes you blind. Drinking the amount of aspartame found in 14 cases of pop every day would fill your system with a large amount of methanol. No question that's going to have negative effects.

The amount of methanol actually found in *normal* consumption of diet sodas, however, is similar to the amount found in things like fruit juice. If your body can deal with fruit juice, it can deal with aspartame-sweetened drinks. As always, it's the dose that makes the poison.

Yes, there is a positive correlation between drinking diet sodas and being overweight. But that's an expected correlation, not a causation. Seriously, what sort of person who's not prone (for whatever reasons) to weight gain is suddenly going to decide, "You know, I want to switch from normal pepsi to diet."? The people who start drinking diet are the ones having trouble with weight gain already. The problem is, a can of pepsi is 150 calories. That's the amount of calories in 1/3 cup of raisins. Yeah, it helps somewhat with your calorie consumption, but it's not the big picture on its own.

Re:danger vs taste

[itzly]

Yes, there is a positive correlation between drinking diet sodas and being overweight.

And part of that correlation is due to the fact that there's a correlation between being overweight and having type 2 diabetes, and switching to diet sodas is an easy first step to help control T2D.

Re:danger vs taste

[Coren22]

That would be because sugar is a portion of the carbohydrate total. Therefore, it already has a % daily value.

My Pure Leaf Extra Sweet tea I am having with lunch shows:

Total Carb. 28g 9%
    Sugars 28g

Those 28g of Carbs is 28g of sugar (as it is sweetened with sugar, not HFCS)

Re:danger vs taste

[rubycodez]

No, you leave out important thing found in fruit juice not found in diet soda. The fruit and other foods which make a tiny amount of methanol also make ethanol, which protects the body from the methanol which by the way turns into formaldehyde. So diet soda consumed with similar protection food should be fine, however it is open question if drinking alone would be fine.

As aside, nutrasweet makes my joints ache

Re:danger vs taste

[thaylin]

The study shows that just the taste of a sweetener can cause on insulin boost, it has nothing to do with the type. The insulin response was BEFORE ingestion, so why would the type of sweetener matter?

Re:danger vs taste

[thaylin]

You make no sense what so ever. THE SUBSTANCE WAS NOT INGESTED, it was solely based on the TASTE BUDS, and the brain response to it. Taste buds do not know what a substance is, it only knows where it falls on a scale. Your argument is illogical. If it was INGESTED then I would agree with you, but it was not.

From these results, we conclude that sweetness information conducted by thistaste nerve provides essential information for eliciting CPIR.

Re:danger vs taste

[DarkOx]

One of the problems is that realistically, the amount of processed sugar be sucrose or HFCS is 0. So the daily % would be NaN.

While refined sugar isn't necessarily bad for you it servers no real dietary purpose other than bulk calories which you either don't need because you are not working in the fields all day, building stone walls by hand, walking everywhere you go etc... or could obtain just easily from some other source along with other nutrients your body does require.

You really DO need 11 (I think proteins) from dietary sources, the other nine your body can synthesize or perhaps its the other way around. You really do need fats as they are the only way to retain certain other fat soluble nutrients. Obviously we have to have sodium and potassium, lack of them can become catastrophic fairly quickly etc. Lots of these things we find in unhealthy excess in processed foods, but we do need some quantity of them; we have no need for sugar. All the sugar we need can be derived from more complex carbohydrates which physiologically are usually better for us. If health is your only criteria, ie cost and pleasure are not considerations etc, I am not sure you can recommend anyone eat sugar; at most you can say it probably won't hurt you.

Re:danger vs taste

[Njorthbiatr]

Tomato juice breaks down into more methanol than your soda.

Aspartame doesn't cause methanol poisoning.

Re:danger vs taste

[Imagix]

14 cases of pop every day...going to have negative effects

Drinking 119+ litres of _water_ every day is going to have negative effects. (14 cases, 24 cans of pop per case, 355 mL per can, 119.28 L) Healthy kidneys can process about 0.8 - 1 L per hour... so 119 L in, 24 L out, where's the other 95 L going?

Re:danger vs taste

[QRDeNameland]

The sweet taste also triggers insulin production, when causes hunger when the sugar that the tongue predicted doesn't show up in the stomach.

There is a quite a bit of contrary evidence to that hypothesis. For one thing, the onset of Type II Diabetes, the most glaring result of disturbed insulin response, is associated with decreased rather than increased first-phase insulin response, so if artificial sweeteners are increasing first-phase insulin response it is not clear why that would be a problem.

And if artificial sweeteners cause an overproduction of insulin in the face of no actual glucose, then consuming them in the absence of no accompanying carbohydrate should be expected to trigger hypoglycemia as insulin triggers body tissues to absorb blood glucose. Yet there is no evidence that this actually happens.

That said, if the choice is between artificial sweeteners and no artificial sweeteners, then the safer bet is not to consume them as they have no precedent in our food supply for most of human evolution. However, if the choice is between artificial sweeteners and the equivalent quantity of sugar (which also has no precedent in our food supply in the quantities consumed in modern diets and has far more well-established deleterious effects on metabolism), the risk of artificial sweeteners seems pretty low in comparison based on currently available evidence.

Re:danger vs taste

[netsavior]

Fountain Diet Coke still contains Saccharin (Or at least it did the last time I got a box of syrup), which is why it tastes better.

Re:danger vs taste

[master_kaos]

Sure, if you like taking laxatives with your drinks

Re:danger vs taste

[Rei]

I took a look at buying Stevia in the store awhile back. I am also a reader of contents labels, so I put it back on the shelf really fast. The first ingredient listed: dextrose

Boy you're a really clever one aren't you, catching onto secret calories in stevia that nobody else did?

First off, stevia is available in many different forms. Stevia is many times more potent than sugar in terms of sweetness, it's extremely hard to use pure (I have pure stevia - to use it pure you have to make very large batches and very tiny measurements!). To dilute it down you obviously have to mix it with something. There are all sorts of mixes, but there are two main categories: those that try for parity with sugar in terms of how much you use (which generally mix with maltodextrin), and those who try for a product that is much sweeter than sugar but not as extreme as pure stevia (these can come in a variety of forms, but a common blend is with dextrose). So yes, the dextrose has calories - but it's far outmatched in terms of sweetness by the stevia therein, so you only need to use a very small amount (depending on the ratio of the blend). The 1:1 parity versions as mentioned use maltodextrin, which is also caloric - but it's so light and fluffy that there's very little mass (and thus calories) per unit volume; basically, what the stevia is blended with is mostly air.

More fun facts about stevia here [100daysofrealfood.com].

Hahaha, Food Babe? Are you joking? The woman who says she hates air travel because they compress your bodies with high pressure air and it restricts your digestive organs? And how "the air that is pumped in isn’t pure oxygen either, it’s mixed with nitrogen, sometimes almost at 50%. To pump a greater amount of oxygen in costs money in terms of fuel and the airlines know this!" Or her microwave rant, where she talks about how microwave ovens are evil because once water has been microwaved it no longer crystalizes into pure forms when frozen, but rather into forms similar to water that has heard words like "hitler" and "satan"? This is your information source?

Yeah, I think I'll stay over here in the real world and not get my information from a living joke, thanks.

Since when

[justthinkit]

Since when is Sucralose better than Aspartame?

Re:Since when

[Monkk]

I have no idea if Sucralose is any safer ... but I know that I am one of the lucky few who gets to enjoy an adverse reaction to aspartame.  From a purely anecdotal view, if I drink diet drinks with aspartame regularly, after a few days to a week I start to lose my balance and just generally feel run down.  Sucralose has not produced any negative effects for me as yet.

Re:Since when

[Mal-2]

Since when is Sucralose better than Aspartame?

Ask someone with phenylketonuria. I once went to a restaurant with a group, one of whom has this disorder. When he ordered a drink, he specifically said "NOT diet, I can't have phenylalanine". They brought him Diet Coke. He drank enough that some time (maybe twenty minutes) later, he had a freak-out and would have gotten all of us tossed out if he hadn't had enough sense to explain to us what he thought was about to happen. The restaurant quickly reversed tack to make sure they weren't going to get sued, while one of the people in the group had to drive him to a hospital to make sure he'd be OK.

Re:Since when

[Minwee]

Pepsi should also advertise "Contains No Radioactive Nuclear Waste".

No... they shouldn't

I'm afraid that I'm bound by too many non-disclosure agreements to explain why, but legally speaking that wouldn't be a good idea for them.

Re:Since when

[Applehu Akbar]

And furthermore, it causes Courier font.

Re:Since when

[Tablizer]

If you think that's bad, sugar causes a WingDing font.

Re:Since when

[fahrbot-bot]

When he ordered a drink, he specifically said "NOT diet, I can't have phenylalanine". They brought him Diet Coke. He drank enough that some time (maybe twenty minutes) later, ...

Not to throw soda on your story or that person, but, if true, he's obviously an idiot. I don't know *anyone* that cannot tell the difference between regular and diet soda with one sip. In addition, according to the Wikipedia page you referenced, people with that affliction, at least if severe enough to cause the kind of reaction that guy mentioned, would be on a severely restricted diet and restaurant dining would be problematic:

The diet requires severely restricting or eliminating foods high in Phe, such as meat, chicken, fish, eggs, nuts, legumes, cheese, milk and other dairy products. Starchy foods, such as potatoes and corn are generally acceptable in controlled amounts,

Lastly, there's nothing to indicate that a trip to the hospital would be warranted, especially for such a small amount ingested:

PKU is not a food allergy or a digestive problem. Eating "forbidden" foods does not cause an immediate reaction. The phenylalanine from that food remains in the person's system, however, and as Phe accumulates over time they may experience concentration and mood problems, as well as eczema and other symptoms

I'm not saying your story or his reaction is BS, but I'm a little dubious.

Re:Since when

[MiniMike]

How about "Does not exceed FDA Recommended Dietary Allowance for Radioactive Nuclear Waste"?

Re:Since when

[ncc74656]

If you think that's bad, sugar causes a WingDing font.

Better that than Comic Sans MS.

artificial sweeteners spike insulin

[calzones]

The problem is that artificial sweeteners create an insulin response even though they are calorie free.

The insulin causes two things: 1) it tells cells to uptake sugar from your blood, which leaves you slightly hypoglycemic, since the insulin response is out of proportion to the actual sugar load consumed (particularly on an empty stomach). 2) chronically elevated insulin leads to insulin resistance (the precursor to metabolic syndrome which makes you fat, diabetic, hypertensive, etc).

This is the real reason we need to stop using most artificial sweeteners. Stevia and Erythritol have not been shown to cause this insulin response. It doesn't mean they aren't also bad. Only that for now, the jury is still out and they appear to be safe. Stevia in particular has been associated with something of an opposite effect, where it seems to improve insulin response in people who consume it.

Now for the popular reason they're getting rid of it:

Aspartame itself appears to have neurological effects as well, which in sufficient quantities causes problems. I personally know that any more than 20 oz of Diet Coke starts making me feel "odd" for lack of a better way to put it. It's not the caffeine. I don't get the effect from non-aspartame caffeinated drinks.

This seems like a relatively minor reason to stop using aspartame unless you're consuming vast quantities. Regardless, people think it's a neurotoxin and can't have that. (Forget about all the other benzene additives, colorants... even caffeine itself is a toxin).

Anyway, glad to see they are doing away with it. Here's hoping they don't use use Sucralose, which is even worse than Aspartame at producing a phantom insulin spike. (And people get upset at the chlorine... but say nothing about drinking chlorinated water or soaking in hot tubs).

Re:artificial sweeteners spike insulin

[calzones]

I forgot to point out above: when the insulin tells your cells to uptake the free blood sugar, unless you've been exercising a lot, it's your fat cells doing so.

So even though a diet soda has zero calories, you just got a tiny bit fatter.

Re:artificial sweeteners spike insulin

[calzones]

Re insulin response in sucralose: http://www.medicalnewstoday.co...

Also, protein itself elicits an insulin response.

Admittedly the case for Aspartame is weaker, and I can't find the citation right now, but despite early studies showing no insulin response for Aspartame, a more recent study DID make make a correlation.

Either way, artificial sweeteners being associated with insulin resistance regardless of BMI has been well-established. It stands to reason, given the evidence that Sucralose has been confirmed to result in an Insulin response, and that Insulin management in general is a tricky thing, that one should treat all artificial sweeteners with the same level of suspicion in this regard.

The only thing that excuses Stevia for now is that studies have shown a beneficial effect as opposed to any negative effect. Feel free to be a lab rat, just be an informed lab rat.

Re:artificial sweeteners spike insulin

[kosh271]

Performing a quick search - Aspartame does NOT induce an insulin response:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
From the abstract "The indicated increased clearance rate of plasma Phe after albumin may be caused by the significant increase of insulin, on which aspartame had no effect."

Could you cite your source where Aspartame does induce an insulin response?

Re:artificial sweeteners spike insulin

[Twinbee]

Does xylitol also cause the insulin response do you know?

FTFY

[jklovanc]

So, yes, aspartame is extremely harmful for a small minority of people.

There are many substances that are extremely harmful to a small number of people either through allergies or sensitivities.

Aspartame got an unfair bad reputation

[iONiUM]

There are two major reasons why people incorrectly think aspartame causes cancer:

1. In 1975 a bad study was released saying aspartame caused brain and other cancers. This study became “legend”, and is what everyone thinks about aspartame, but it is not true. There is even an article on Wikipedia specifically about this controversy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame_controversy
2. In 1998, a hoax was released saying aspartame caused all sorts of serious diseases, and people believed it: http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blasp.htm. It’s also on snopes http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/aspartame.asp

Due to the 1975 study, studies were launched and FDA officials describing aspartame as "one of the most thoroughly tested and studied food additives the agency has ever approved" and its safety as "clear cut" (http://web.archive.org/web/20071214170430/www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1999/699_sugar.html)

1. The European Food Safety Authority concluded in its 2013 re-evaluation that aspartame and its breakdown products are safe for human consumption at current levels of exposure (http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/3496.htm)
2. As do other independent studies (http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10408440701516184)
3. The national cancer institute has cleared aspartame as having no links to cancer (http://web.archive.org/web/20090212130028/http://cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/AspartameQandA)

There are many more scientific studies on it by national governments showing it’s safe as well:

• UK https://www.food.gov.uk/science/additives/aspartame/
• Canada http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/securit/addit/sweeten-edulcor/aspartame-eng.php
• Australia / New Zealand http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/additives/aspartame/pages/default.aspx

Re:Aspartame got an unfair bad reputation

[PRMan]

Many of the studies calling aspartame "safe" used MSG in the "placebo". MSG is well-known to cause the same migraines as aspartame in the same class of people. Because of this, all of the effects were classified as "false positives" because nearly the same percentage had problems with the placebo.

Who puts MSG (a substance well-known for causing migraines in many people) in a placebo? That's shady as hell.

Xylitol to the rescue?

[Twinbee]

Nice idea. Now instead of putting in teeth-rotting sugar or another weird tasting artificial sweetener, try Xylitol. Not only is it good for the teeth and health (less than 50% calories of sugar), but unlike most or all of the alternative sweeteners, it also TASTES like real sugar. I bought some for myself to put on cereal, and also unlike other sweeteners, it doesn't have that bitter aftertaste.

I bought this one from the UK, but for the US, this one looks good.

Only a small percentage of people find trouble with it (it can have a laxative affect if you take too much for the first few days). Still 4.8/5 from 106 reviews (no 1 or 2 star) is mightily impressive if you ask me.

Re:Xylitol to the rescue?

[bigfinger76]

The spelling of that chemical alone will prevent its success.

Re:Xylitol to the rescue?

[bluefoxlucid]

1g of Xylitol is enough to kill 3 dogs in half an hour. It's the kind of stuff most people can't keep in their house. If you spill your soda, your dog runs over, laps at it, and then is dead in half an hour.

Re:Xylitol to the rescue?

[Just Some Guy]

1g of Xylitol is enough to kill 3 dogs in half an hour.

That is the oddest mortality unit I've heard in a long time.

Re:Xylitol to the rescue?

[bluefoxlucid]

I've watched a dog eat a half a bag of chocolate peanut butter cups, vomit, then be miserable for days. A dog eating a chocolate bar isn't nearly as fatal as you'd think.

Chocolate is like if you inhaled gasoline fumes. Xylitol for a dog is like if you inhaled Sarin nerve gas.

Re:Xylitol to the rescue?

[Smurf]

You are right in that xylitol is extremely toxic to dogs, but the dosage you mention is way off. In this study, for example, they gave 1 or 4 grams of xylitol per kg of weight to 12 adult Pekingese dogs. Since adult Pekingeses weight around 4.5 kg, that means that six of the dogs in the study received around 18 grams of xylitol. (Six other dogs received the lower dose, and six more were controls who received distilled water; the abstract is misleading as it suggests that all 18 dogs received xylitol).

All of the dogs who got xylitol showed significant effects, in several cases very severe. But... none of them died.

Re:Headaches...

[MitchDev]

Some people are deathly allergic to peanuts and peanut products, should we ban them all?

Re:Won't be drinking it

[ArmoredDragon]

I still drink regular soda as part of my diet, but instead of once a day it's more like once a month. I can't stand diet soda, and will only occasionally have it.

But diet soda is certainly better from a nutrition standpoint. The sheer volume of sugar in regular soda I think is the reason I developed Non-Alchoholic Fatty Liver Disease, and is probably why my cholesterol/triglyceride count is so high without statin drugs. I'll be able to test that theory after another 6 months or so because I've been off of high sugar foods for about 6 months so far, and the cholesterol/triglyceride figures have already dropped even on a low dose of lovastatin.

Re:Won't be drinking it

[ArmoredDragon]

This message brought to you by the Aspartame industry and FOX News.

This message brought to you by the Organic Food Lobby, and the Church of Homeopathic Medicine.

Seriously, Aspartame is very safe. All of the anecdotes about it killing ants and whatnot are really just shitty science (somebody was able to repeat the same result using just a puddle of water, which also kills ants.) It's a non-nutrative sweetener, which means as far as your body is concerned, it is inert. There have already been decades of investigation into aspartame, and none have linked any kind of illness to it (except of course the bunk materials spread by the Church of Homeopathic Medicine.)

Re:Aspartame not harmful?

[james_shoemaker]

I'll chime in on the aspartame==migrane bandwagon. I don't use caffeine, but consuming things like crystal lite can trigger migraines for me. I don't have the same problem with sucralose or sugar.

    I have also had the same reaction from accidentally consuming a diet coke (handed to me by my wife to hold and drank absent-mindedly).

Why do all diet drinks taste vile

[SuperKendall]

It seems like no matter what they use in diet drinks, all of them have a pretty horrific aftertaste that I get after just one sip.

Instead of diet drinks, I mostly drink water or just less soda. I used to drink a ton of soda but now half a can is enough for me - do be afraid to just throw out half a cup or can. It's just soda.

Re:Still Acesulfame K (yuk!)

[bill_mcgonigle]

yeah, and it's probably carcinogenic.

I've got a nasty Diet Cola habit, but switched from Pepsi to Sam's after Pepsi started adding ace-K. It's not hard to calculate a dose of aspartame that your liver enyzmes can handle but there's no safe-ish dose of ace-K.

Oh, and the whole "aspartame makes you fat" meme is bullshit - I've dropped 45 lbs in the past year by getting rid of nearly all the carbs in my diet, all while drinking the stuff. An over-abundance of carbs is what horks your insulin system.

A sweetener that is proven to be incredibly dangerous, though: sugar, especially HFCS. It causes the largest health crisis the country has ever seen and innumerable downstream morbidities. Most articles about artificial sweeteners tend to "gloss over" that part.

A huge number of Americans self-medicate on caffeine (the drug they should be on is probably illegal or guarded behind the nearly impenetrable veil of the AMA's psychiatric guild). But encouraging them to drink their caffeine with sugar is the worst possible idea. Ace-K is probably carcinogenic, but once you've got some cancer cells, to really make them happy, fill them with fructose - Pepsi's got what cancer craves!

Re:Won't be drinking it

[PRMan]

At least for me, Aspartame gives me really bad migraines. Actually, it does it to my wife and daughters as well. And there are studies that show that it may be related to the rise in Alzheimer's.

The company paying for all those studies saying that it's safe is Monsanto, who doesn't have the best track record for being honest about what all their chemicals are doing (see honeybee hive death, different proteins in GMO wheat, pesticides, etc.)

Sucrose question

[JustNiz]

I think I'm proably like a lot of (non-diabetic) Europeans in that I mentally lump aspartame, sucralose, splenda, corn syrup, saccharin, MSG and all other man-made sweeteners into the same "big money is covering these up as a direct cause of serious health issues" category, and sucrose into a "not great, but way better than anything artificial" category.

My question is: Is my paranoia scientifically justified?

Re:Left-handed sugar

[RoccamOccam]

Responding to myself, I guess the original article that I had read was talking about tagatose

Tagatose is a low carbohydrate functional sweetener, very similar to fructose in structure. It is naturally occurring and can be found in some dairy products. Tagatose has a physical bulk similar to sucrose or table sugar and is almost as sweet. However, it is metabolized differently, has a minimal effect on blood glucose and insulin levels and furthermore provides a prebiotic effect. Tagatose is especially suitable as a flavor enhancer or as a low carbohydrate sweetener.

I wonder why it's not more popular.